Ara
  • Diskriminant 99

Astrology, Plasma Universe and Electromagnetism #1

First Part

"Because of blind loyalty to a favored theory, many mistakes have crept into science that require more labor to correct. To prevent them requires a great deal of mental humility, independence and acceptance of defeat."
-Michael Faraday
"In the sciences, the authority of thousands of opinions is not worth as much as one tiny spark of reason in an individual man."
-Galileo Galilei

Hi,


The only purpose of this article is to help you understand the next one.


First of all, I will talk a little bit about plasma physics and plasma cosmology so that you can understand the connection. In the second part, I will explain the connections between the electric universe model and astrology.


(You will hear his name often in this article: Hannes Alfven, Nobel Prize-winning physicist. He is considered the father of plasma physics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hannes_Alfv%C3%A9n)


The Atomic Model and Particles in Brief



The whole structure you see above is called an atom. All objects are made up of versions of these atoms with different numbers of protons, neutrons and electrons.

The electron is negatively charged, the proton is positively charged and the neutron is neutral. In a normal atom, protons and electrons are equal in number and their charges cancel each other out, so the atom is neutral.


If an electron is removed from a neutral atom, the atom with the missing electron is called an ion. This structure is a positive ion because it has more protons, and only positive ions are usually meant when we say ion. Negative ions can also exist. An electron detached from its own atom is always negatively charged.


Each charged particle generates its own electric field. The flow of electrons creates electric currents. Every electric current necessarily creates a magnetic field.


What is Plasma?


"In the beginning was the Plasma."
-Hannes Alfven

Plasma is simply a mixture of charged and neutral particles. It can contain free-floating electrons, positively and negatively charged ions and neutral particles. It is obtained by heating (ionizing) gases sufficiently. It is also known as the 4th state of matter.


It is also called an "ionized gas", but it behaves very differently from a gas. In mainstream cosmology, plasma is often misnamed. Space plasmas are often called gas, hydrogen cloud, ionized gas, etc., which is quite wrong.


Alfven says the following on this subject:

[First approach: Ionized Gases, Second approach: Plasma]


"The fundamental difference between the first and second approaches is illustrated to some extent by the terms ionized gas and plasma, which, although in reality synonymous, refer to different general concepts. The first term gives the impression of a medium that basically resembles a gas, especially the atmospheric gas with which we are most familiar.
In contrast, a plasma, especially a fully ionized magnetized plasma, are states of matter with fundamentally different properties..." - Hannes Alfven

Alfvén, Hannes, “Model of the plasma universe”, IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science (ISSN 0093-3813), vol. PS-14, Dec. 1986, p. 629-638


This is the origin of the word plasma:

Under the influence of electric currents, plasma produces filamentary, undulating, spiraling formations, with life-like attributes.
Indeed, it was this life-like quality of electrified plasma that inspired Irving Langmuir to borrow the term from biology (blood plasma).

Kaynak: http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2004/arch/040810mystery-cosmic-dragon.htm


"“Except near the electrodes, where there are sheaths containing very few electrons, the ionized gas contains ions and electrons in about equal numbers so that the resultant space charge is very small. We shall use the name plasma to describe this region containing balanced charges of ions and electrons.”[7]

I. Langmuir, “Oscillations in ionized gases,” Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. U.S., vol. 14, p. 628, 1928


The reason why you are not familiar with plasma is that the remaining 3 states of matter are more common on Earth. This is exceptional because 99% of the structures in the universe are plasma.


The branch of physics that studies the behavior of plasma is called plasma physics. Plasma Physics also has applications in fusion technologies. That's why it is generally of interest.


Properties of Plasma


I cannot include all the features here. I will talk about general features.

  1. It makes up 99% of the structures in the universe.

  2. Scalability, understanding space structures with laboratory experiments

  3. Filamentization tendency

  4. Being a perfect conductor, they all conduct electric currents and generate their own magnetic fields, they are affected by magnetic fields, including their own magnetic fields

  5. Having a life-like structure that can change itself by being affected by the magnetic fields it generates


Plasmas are excellent conductors of electricity. The most distinctive feature of plasmas is that they can be affected by and generate electromagnetic forces.


The movement of electrons in a plasma generates an electric current, and electric currents always generate magnetic fields. Plasmas are affected by magnetic fields and generate magnetic fields. Of course, the magnetic fields they generate can affect and change their structure.


Thus, self-organizing plasma entities (plasmoids) are formed, just like living beings. This is what the above expression of life-like structure is based on.


Plasmas can be produced in laboratories and are also found free in space.

In fact, 99% of the structures in the universe are composed of plasma:


The visible universe is 99.999% plasma.
So quite simply, if you don’t know how plasmas behave, you don’t know how the Universe behaves. It is worth noting that all cosmic plasma carries a magnetic field and electric currents.
Even plasmas that are less than 1% ionized, may behave as a plasma, as do dusty plasmas (ie. “dust grains can be the dominant current carrier”)[3].

https://www.plasma-universe.com/99-999-plasma/


Now I think you are beginning to understand why I am talking about plasmas.


There are many plasma structures in space. The most obvious of these are stars.

Yes, our Sun is literally a plasma.


Most of the atoms in the Sun are ionized. This is particulary true in the hot, dense interior, where essentially all the hydrogen and helium atoms are completely ionized. Such a highly ionized gas is called a plasma. So, although it is quite common to see the Sun referred to as a gaseous body, a more specific description is that it is made of plasma. In this case, the plasma consists mainly of hydrogen and helium ions, together with the electrons that were liberated when those ions were produced.

Simon F. Green, Mark H. Jones, S. Jocelyn Burnell, An Introduction to the Sun and Stars 2004, Cambridge University Press, 2004, ISBN 0521546222, 9780521546225, 373 pages. Page 46


Another large plasma structure is plasma filaments.

Plasma filaments are structures formed when free plasma in space is gathered into a string-like structure that can carry current and thus generate magnetic fields.

https://www.plasma-universe.com/filamentation/


Some obvious examples of plasma filaments:



As you can see in the picture above, plasma structures are spread all over the universe, from stars to galaxies. [I will come back to this topic]


The ability of plasmas to filament is one of their main properties:


Alfvén has long and correctly argued that the spontaneous formation of current filaments (“magnetic ropes,” “current constrictions,” “plasma rays,” etc.) is a fundamental feature of magnetized plasmas in the laboratory as well as in space.

[3] https://www.plasma-universe.com/filamentation/#cite_note-3


(Quick note: The model of cosmology commonly used in academia is called Standard Cosmology, which often ignores the behavior of plasma.

The universe model created by applying plasma physics to space is the Plasma universe model. I will explain the universe models in more detail in the next section).


The last remaining property is scalability:

Plasma exhibits all the properties it exhibits in the laboratory, even when it is hundreds of times larger in space than plasma in the laboratory.

This makes it possible to understand structures in space with laboratory experiments.


Alfven has therefore always argued that cosmology should be an extension of laboratory experiments.

"As far as we can see, no image requires us to invent a new law of physics. The fundamental properties of plasma are the same everywhere, from the laboratory to Hubble distances."
-Hannes Alfven

https://www.plasma-universe.com/plasma-scaling/


This is what makes plasma models of the universe real science: the plasma phenomena you observe in laboratory experiments can also be detected in structures in space. And vice versa. So plasma universe models are testable by experiments.

This is completely consistent with the scientific method:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method


On the contrary, the Standard cosmological model consists largely of hypothetical theories and cannot be tested by experiments.


(quick information)


Four Fundamental Forces

"Gravitational systems are the 'ashes' of prior electrical systems."
-Hannes Alfven

There are 4 fundamental forces that cause all the forces we detect in the universe:

  1. The Strong Nuclear Force

  2. Electromagnetism

  3. Weak Nuclear Force

  4. Gravity


You can read about nuclear forces on the internet, I am not going to talk about nuclear forces.


Electromagnetism and gravity are forces that you are quite familiar with.

Electromagnetism is what makes a magnet stick to a refrigerator.

When you let go of an apple, the force that pulls it down is the force of gravity.



This brings us to another topic, Universe models.


What is a Model of the Universe?


In short, a model of the universe is a set of theories that explain the structure of the universe and how space and the structures within it behave.


The Standard Cosmological Model (SCM)

The Standard Cosmological Model, we can call it "SC(u)M" for short.


The SCM is the model of the universe accepted by the vast majority of the scientific community today. In this model, the dominant force in the universe is gravity - the force that masses exert on each other. In other words, gravity is the force that holds the planets around the stars and forms galaxies and stars.

It also includes incredible hypotheticals and theories such as the big bang, dark matter, dark energy, black holes, etc.


SCM is built entirely on Einstein's theory of general relativity.


The Plasma Universe Model


The Plasma Universe Model (I will call it PU for short), on the contrary to the SCM, says that electromagnetism is the force that governs the universe, because 99.999% of the structures in the universe are made of plasma.

(The statement that 99% of the structures in the universe are made of plasma is not just an argument of this PU model. The entire scientific community agrees that 99% of the observable structures in the universe are composed of plasma, even SCM supporters accept this. )


And according to PU, the force that will govern the universe is electromagnetism, which naturally originates from plasma. The application of plasma physics to space leads to the Plasma Universe Model.


Hannes Alfven, the founder of this model, is also considered the father of plasma physics. Many developments in plasma physics are thanks to him. He won the Nobel Prize in physics for his work on magnetohydrodynamics.


Also, plasma physics, which is the basis of PU, has been researched for almost a hundred years and is very well documented. I say this because in standard cosmology there is a "thing" called dark matter that has been researched for almost half a century and is still unknown.


The Electric Universe Model


The Electric Universe Model, I will call it EU for short, is the model that will be our main topic. There are plenty of sources on the internet about the previous models, so I won't mention more.


EU is largely the same as the Plasma Universe Model (PU). I will share a nice video about the differences between them*, but the most obvious differences:

EU proposes a different theory about the structure of stars, while PU accepts the classical SCM theory, thermonuclear sun theory. Apart from this difference, both models advocate almost the same things.


(*Plasma Universe & Electric Universe, What's the Difference? - YouTube)


Dr. Anthony Peratt, a graduate student of Hannes Alfvén, has made great contributions to EU. Peratt is a physicist who has worked on both models (EU and PU).


So the whole problem is the differences between these models of the universe (Differences between EU/PU and SCM). In academia, to a very, very large extent, the SCM is accepted, and even though this model has an incredible number of problems, it is believed as if it were a religion, and it is not even questioned.


Now that I have briefly described the literature, we can get back to the topic.


Galaxy Simulation

"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

"...A very good example of this is the work of Dr Anthony Peratt, who was a graduate student of the very famous Hannes Alfvén, who was really the father of electric cosmology. Peratt simulated on a super computer using just a cloud of electrical charges and a magnetic field just using the laws of electrical science, not using anything to do with gravity.

He simulated what looked like a spiral galaxy. And the interesting thing is that Peratt's spiral galaxy in the laboratory had exactly the same rotational properties as the real spiral galaxies that we see in the sky."

[2] The quote is from this documentary: (17:14)

(It's a great documentary, you should watch it)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5AUA7XS0TvA&list=PLwOAYhBuU3UfvhvcT1lZA6KbSdh0K2EpH&index=2


The simulation Peratt did:

https://www.plasma-universe.com/Galaxy-formation/

The Milky Way Galaxy:

They're quite similar, aren't they?


Incidentally, the same galaxy formation has already been observed by Bostic in experiments:


As you can see, PU/EU can explain the formation of galaxies without resorting to a theory like dark matter, for which there is no evidence!


"Structure formation refers to the period after the Big Bang when density perturbations collapsed to form stars, galaxies, and clusters. Prior to structure formation, the Friedmann solutions to general relativity describe a homogeneous universe. Later, small anisotropies gradually grew and condensed the homogeneous universe into stars, galaxies and larger structures. Ordinary matter is affected by radiation, which is the dominant element of the universe at very early times. As a result, its density perturbations are washed out and unable to condense into structure.[70] If there were only ordinary matter in the universe, there would not have been enough time for density perturbations to grow into the galaxies and clusters currently seen.


Dark matter provides a solution to this problem because it is unaffected by radiation. Therefore, its density perturbations can grow first. The resulting gravitational potential acts as an attractive potential well for ordinary matter collapsing later, speeding up the structure formation process.[70][71]"

[3](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter)


I have to say that dark matter is as much Jewish nonsense as the big bang is Jewish nonsense. You can't say how ridiculous the big bang is and then talk about how interesting dark matter is. Because both theories (along with many other Jewish theories) are connected like pieces of a jigsaw puzzle, and they were invented to try to prevent each other from being disproved.


I may write about dark matter later, but for now this will probably suffice: https://dwahts.blogspot.com/2018/04/dark-matter-does-not-exist.html


Four Fundamental Forces

"Gravitational systems are the 'ashes' of prior electrical systems."
-Hannes Alfven

There are 4 fundamental forces that cause all the forces we detect in the universe:

  1. The Strong Nuclear Force

  2. Electromagnetism

  3. Weak Nuclear Force

  4. Gravity


You can read about nuclear forces on the internet, I am not going to talk about nuclear forces.


Electromagnetism and gravity are forces that you are quite familiar with.

Electromagnetism is what makes a magnet stick to a refrigerator.

When you let go of an apple, the force that pulls it down is the force of gravity.


An important difference between SCM and other theories is the forces they use.


(Quick Note: 10^8 means 1 and 8 zero: 100.000.000 And 10^36 means 1 and 36 zero)


"Gravity is, by far, the weakest of the four fundamental interactions, approximately 10^38 times weaker than the strong interaction, 10^36 times weaker than the electromagnetic force and 10^29 times weaker than the weak interaction."

Source:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity


The SCM says that the dominant force in the universe is gravity, and gravity is by far the weakest force in the universe. This poses obvious challenges to the SCM, such as its inability to explain galaxy formation on its own.


PU/EU says that electromagnetism is the dominant force in the universe. Unlike gravity, electromagnetism is one of the strongest of the four forces, second from strongest to weakest. This is of course a big advantage for PU/EU.


In standard cosmology, there is no force other than gravity that can be effective at astronomical scales, but according to PU/EU, gravity can be effective in some places where the effect of electromagnetism is low.


In fact, there are some hypotheses that even gravity has its origin in electromagnetism. Obviously, such a discovery would clarify a lot of things.


Also, the statement "The plasma universe model has been debunked by scientists" is a fairy tale. The name of the "scientists" who debunked it is not clear, nor is it clear how they debunked it.


The plasma universe model also says that the universe has no beginning and no end. Because we have no such observations. There are only local formations, for example, the Milky Way galaxy did not exist at one time, it formed later, the solar system did not exist at one time, it formed later. If you think in this way, the infinity of the universe makes sense.

Also, one of the most important differences from standard cosmology is its methodology.

It starts from a certain time in the big bang and gradually constructs how the present universe came into being, and then it looks to see if this is supported by observations.

The plasma universe model, on the other hand, first makes observations and then builds its theory, just like physics has been doing for centuries.


The biggest problem with the Plasma Universe Model:


"Computer Simulations Match Observations


The biggest problem with the Plasma Universe model is that the equations describing filamentary and electrically conducting plasma in a magnetic field are non-linear.


Such equations do not have solutions like the equations we learned in high school, and their solutions are only possible with supercomputers.


Plasma theorists use a method called plasma simulation. In this method, numerical particles consisting of millions of particles are added to a numerical virtual nature with equations and laws previously obtained theoretically or experimentally. The computer is started and waited. After a while, depending on the speed of the computer, structures formed by the motion of these particles can be seen. The accuracy of the equations can be tested by comparing these numerically obtained structures with laboratory and sky observations.

However, although millions of particles were used in the first simulations, a much higher number of particles is required to obtain results closer to reality.


For this, more powerful computers are needed. Since our galaxy, the Milky Way, contains 10^65 free electrons and ions, one particle used in the simulation actually corresponds to a huge group of particles. Nevertheless, simulations with 50 million particles can reproduce the observed galaxy structures in the universe with astonishing numerical similarities. Most importantly, the equations and values used in the simulations were obtained through laboratory experiments. The results are consistent with observations.


To achieve this agreement, it was not necessary to create some imaginary ensembles of particles or matter (Like dark matter).


Hannes Alfven explains:

"As far as we can see, none of the images require us to invent a new law of physics. The fundamental properties of plasma are the same everywhere, from the laboratory to Hubble distances." "


There is another issue related to this.

As you know, electric currents always produce magnetic fields. Filaments and other plasma structures also carry electric currents and therefore generate magnetic fields, and plasma structures cover 99% of the universe. So logically space must be full of magnetic fields, right? Indeed it is.

And the existence of magnetic fields in space is something that cannot be ignored even in standard cosmology. But what they ignore are the electric currents that generate them.


You realize that magnetism exists in cosmological scales. At first cosmic magnetism was completely ignored in standard cosmology, and then gradually they started to accept it.



"

[It's a Q&A section on an old nasa site.]

On the question, do magnetic fields exist throughout space, the answer reads as follows:

"On the cosmological scale, there is no data to suggest that magnetic fields are present.

They certainly are not important in the dynamics of the universe for any reasonable range of field strengths consistent with present observational constraints."

But fast-forward to 2011 and the undeniable conundrum is acknowledged in the Universe Today article.

It states:

"The mention of cosmic-scale magnetic fields is still likely to be met with an uncomfortable silence in some astronomical circles and after a bit of foot shuffling and throat clearing, the discussion will be moved on to safer topics.

But look, they're out there.

They probably do play a role in galaxy evolution, if not galaxy formation and are certainly a feature of the interstellar medium and the intergalactic medium."

But what causes these magnetic fields which astronomers and astrophysicists had long believed to be "not important" ? "

Source:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ZnfNuXiExQ


Let me answer the last question. As I just said, the only thing that can generate magnetic fields are electric currents.

But in standard cosmology, magnetic fields are accepted, but the electric currents that generate them are not:


"The real problem facing astronomers and astrophysicists is succinctly summarized in a Scholarpedia page on the origins of galactic magnetic fields:

'The origin of the first magnetic fields in the Universe is still a mystery (Widrow 2002). Protogalaxies probably were already magnetic due to field ejection from the first stars or from jets generated by the first black holes. However, a primordial field in a young galaxy is hard to maintain because a galaxy rotates differentially (the angular velocity decreases with radius), so that the magnetic field lines get strongly wound up (in contrast to observations, see below) and field lines with opposite polarity may cancel via magnetic reconnection.

This calls for a mechanism to sustain and organize the magnetic field. '

[http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Galactic_magnetic_fields]

At a smaller scale in our own celestial neighborhood, scientists call on mysterious internal dynamos to explain the magnetic fields of planets and the Sun.

Dynamos are also now proposed inside of galaxies to explain the galactic magnetic fields.

But plasma cosmologists have shown theoretically and experimentally that the magnetic fields in galaxies are due to electric currents flowing into the centers along the spiral arms of the galaxies.


It's proposed that, when the current reaches the center of the galaxy, it's twisted into an object called a plasmoid where all of the electromagnetic energy is stored until the plasmoid becomes unstable and ejects matter in jets along the galaxy axis as observed in deep space."


Not only all galaxies are magnetic, but also the weak filaments that connect them.

Every time we look at the sky, we find magnetism.

" The lead researcher said:

"Overall, we don't know how such large magnetic fields form and how these large-scale magnetic fields influence galaxy formation and evolution. Understanding the role magnetic fields play in the evolution of galaxies and their environments is a fundamental question that needs to be answered in astronomy. "


But as I wrote at the beginning of this article, plasma cosmologists solved this problem decades ago thanks to the existence of electric currents inside filaments.



Star Models

"Newton was unaware of plasma. Today his disciples spend years in training learning when and how to shut their eyes to it."
-Mel Acheson

https://www.electricuniverse.info/electric-sun-theory/

The Electric Sun


Now let's talk about star models.

The theory believed in standard cosmology is the thermonuclear theory of the sun. In this theory, the power that makes the sun radiate energy is the high amount of energy released from the fusion reactions in its core.


Strangely, this theory is also accepted in the plasma universe model.


In the electric universe, the electric sun theory is accepted. Here, the sun is powered by the electric currents it receives from outer space.


In this model, since energy comes from outer space and the universe is infinite, the sun will probably be able to work forever.

The thermonuclear theory says that the sun will run out of energy and eventually change to another form.


"The Electric Sun analogy with a hydro-electric power station. Drift currents of incoming electrons are very difficult to detect. The surface area of the heliopause is some 600 million times greater than the surface area of the Sun"

https://www.electricuniverse.info/electric-sun-theory/


Of course, this theory works the same way for all stars. The sun is just one example.


And my favorite part is that, again, it is more experimental than the standard cosmological model.

While it is not possible to test the thermonuclear star model, an experiment testing the Electric Solar Model is already underway:


"The Safire Project is a set of laboratory-based experiments to “explore the role of electricity in stellar and planetary phenomena”, in particular, to independently test the Electric Sun theory.[1] Based on a “Design of Experiments” approach, and using a SCADA control system, Safire focuses primarily on observation and experimentation, instead of theory and simulations.[2] Experimentation takes place in a large vacuum chamber, that has also been described as “A Star in a Jar”. The wide variety of data generated by the chamber allows a comparison with data retrieved from the Sun, that is more than just a visual comparison. SAFIRE is an acronym for “Stellar Atmospheric Function in Regulation Experiment”.

To date, the Safire Project has not found any disparities with the EU/ES model."

Source:https://www.electricuniverse.info/electric-sun-theory/


Also, tons of problems found in the Thermonuclear Star Model come from the natural consequences of this model:

(The Thermonuclear Star Model can also be called the fusion model).


" Fusion Model, No Explanations

There are any number of observations that have ad hoc present explanations, but really have no explanation in the Standard Model and are natural consequences of the electrical model.

For example, heavy elements, the solar spectrum, the neutrino deficiency, the neutrino variability, solar atmosphere, differential rotation by latitude, differential rotation by depth, equatorial plasma torus, sunspots, sunspot migration, the sunspot penumbra and the sunspot cycle itself, magnetic field strength, the even magnetic field, helio seismology, solar density and the changing size.*

All of the observations in that list are natural consequences of the Electrical Sun Model.


Standard astronomers tend to pass them off as being inconsequential difficulties that will eventually someday be solved. I maintain, and so do our colleagues here, that these are not inconsequential but are rather death blows to the Solar Fusion Model because they are important. They're not secondary. They are primary falsifying observations for that failed nuclear fusion model"

*[So the whole fusion theory is wrong?]


Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5AUA7XS0TvA&list=PLwOAYhBuU3UfvhvcT1lZA6KbSdh0K2EpH&index=2


"The modern astrophysical concept that ascribes the sun's energy to thermonuclear reactions deep in the solar interior is contradicted by nearly every observable aspect of the sun." -Ralph E. Juergens (1980)

Now I'm going to go back to the part I mentioned at the beginning about the connections. I'm going to talk about a simple Electric Universe principle that we hear about all the time:


There's no islands in The Universe.


This sentence means that there is no cosmic structure in the universe that exists in isolation.


The whole universe is connected by plasma structures and magnetic fields.


In the same way, the Sun is connected to all the planets by birkeland currents:

"It is clearer than ever that the planets in the Sun's electrical field of influence are electrically charged bodies."


In fact, connections between galaxies have been predicted since the 1980s and are now considered certain. This is known as the cosmic web in the standard cosmological model.


In the Plasma Model of the Universe, cosmic-sized plasmas create galaxies and the stars in these galaxies through electromagnetic z-pinch effects. To say that these plasmas stay in place and power the stars is only a small guess. Stars also have these bonds between planets.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=swcpo0L8juo&list=PLwOAYhBuU3Uez8f1P6ZyYdI90Egln3rX5&index=4


"The whole universe is connected by plasma structures and magnetic fields. "

We will talk about this in the next post.

"In the end, The Universe will have its say."

-Sir Fred Hoyle



94 görüntüleme0 yorum

Son Paylaşımlar

Hepsini Gör