You sure that couldn't be caused by the jets from and active galaxy? Those things put out a lot of radio waves...

__________________
If ignorance is bliss, why is the world so full of misery?

Here an example of radio wave observed in the Solar System,
http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/plasma_space.html

... These craft, in addition to radio astronomy, have uncovered phenomena which were previously unsuspected. For example, "ropes" of magnetic-flux-entwined plasma were discovered on Venus while strong electrical discharges were observed on Jupiter, its satellite Io, and Saturn; a phenomena that apparently also occurs on the inner planet Mercury. In mimicry to the Jupiter-Io torus, Voyager 1 discovered a gigantic torus of plasma around Saturn, that begins far beyond its ring system and extends 25 times the radius of the planet.

Like Earth, Jupiter, Saturn, and Uranus were found to be intense sources of radio waves. This radiation is intermittent and intimately connected to polar aurora observed on all these planets. The source of this radiation derives from charged particles trapped and accelerated in the magnetospheric plasmas of these planets, producing powers several orders of magnitude greater than radio broadcast transmitters. These waves cannot penetrate the protective layer of plasma covering Earth (the ionosphere) and so were unsuspected until the advent of satellites.

I'm starting not to trust Los Alamos National Labratory. The seem to let anybody host websites on their site.
What a coincidence, planets with strong magnetic fields are sources of radio waves. Not really a notch in EU's belt so much as what we would except from normal physics.

Yet these incredibly powerful radio tranmissions are unable to penetrate Earth's atmosphere? Someone should tell Bernard Burke and Kenneth Franklin, the radio astronomers who discovered Jupiter's radio transmissions using the Mills Cross Array back in 1955. Two years before the launch of Sputnik.

A big claim is made about a plasma torus 25x the diameter of Saturn. Well, what about Jupiter's magnetosphere? It's larger than the sun, in fact it's the largest object in the solar system.

Why is it when I search google for "magnetic-flux-entwined plasma", I only get four hits? One of them being this thread. Doesn't seem to be a very big discovery. Perchance EU is making more of it that the discovery warrants. Perhaps I'm being too critical. I mean plasma cosmology isn't very popular and google find many pages about it. I mean, it just finds 189,000 pages...

__________________
People who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do.

In fact and more precisely:
These waves cannot penetrate the protective layer of plasma covering Earth (the ionosphere)

The Earth's magnetic field acts in many ways as a buffer between us and space

A magnetic field cannot block radio waves, in case you forgot...

And whether the radio waves get past the ionosphere depends on a) the condition of the ionosphere (which can be altered by solar flares, CMEs, etc.) and b) the frequency of the radio waves, IIRC.

__________________
If ignorance is bliss, why is the world so full of misery?

Yep I made a mistake.In fact the Earth magnetic field act like a buffer protecting the Earth environnement from the dangerous ejections of the Sun like Coronal Mass ejections.
Well, in a earlier post you seemed to say than only active galaxie is the source of radio wave .I have probably misreading your post.

Edited to add the sentence about Coronal Mass ejection.

I never see the Los Alamos Laboratory redirecting people to Holoscience website for example.So it is easy to conclude than they(Holoscience) have made a cosmology ie (Holoscience Electric Sun) not always based upon Athony Perratt Plasma Cosmology based upon Hannes Elfven teachings.


[/quote]
You mean probably the Earth ionosphere.
Read the complete sentence:
These craft, in addition to radio astronomy, have uncovered phenomena which were previously unsuspected...
So you think because they point out the plasma torus 25x the diameter of Saturn they are not aware about Jupiter's magnetosphere dimension.Come on.

edit to fix a quote

Well, since the ionosphere is part of the atmosphere, what I said was technically correct.

Nope, the previous paragraph mentions what you said. But the paragraph we both quoted says that Jupiter was not suspected as a source of radio emissions until after the advent of satellites. In fact, Jupiter was discovered to me a source because the radio astronomers picked up interference listening to radio waves from the Crab Nebula.

__________________
People who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do.

[quote="wedgebert"]But the discovery than Earth, Saturn and Uranus were also found to be intense sources of radio waves was made via Space Probes right?What explain than in the case of Saturn and Uranus these radio waves were not detected via Radio Telescopes?
What is the mainstream explanation for the Radio Waves emission produce by these planets?
Here the plasma cosmology explanation:
"Like Earth, Jupiter, Saturn, and Uranus were found to be intense sources of radio waves. This radiation is intermittent and intimately connected to polar aurora observed on all these planets. The source of this radiation derives from charged particles trapped and accelerated in the magnetospheric plasmas of these planets, producing powers several orders of magnitude greater than radio broadcast transmitters."

I don't know when/how Saturn and Uranus were discovered to be radio emitters, but I'm sure after Jupiter was discovered, they turned their radio telescopes to each planet in turn.

I'm also not sure when Earth was "dicovered" to be a radio emitter. It might have taken a satellite to rise above the artificial radio emissions. Then again, I believe again, atmosphere phenomenon like lightning have been known to emit radio waves.

The most likely cause of Jupiter's radio emissions is electrons spirialing around inside of the Jovan magnetic field which produces cyclotron emissions.

__________________
People who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do.

So, the discovery than Jupiter is a source of radio-waves was a surprise.
Not because astrophicisists have suspected than Jupiter can be a source of radio-waves, the observation was totally forfuite.

Contrary to your affirmation from a previous post.Page 11
Wedgebert wrote

Uhh, Lm Wong, what exactly are you trying to say? #-o

__________________
If ignorance is bliss, why is the world so full of misery?

Than observations supporting the Plasma Cosmology are rejected and considered irrevelant.

Look page 11 for example.

Has anyone posted this link yet.
http://www.windows.ucar.edu/cgi-bin/...erse/fisk.html

__________________
"A theory, has a much greater chance for acceptance if it can predict a phenomenon." - Albert Einstein

http://www.aerology.com/natforecasts.shtml

Lm Wong, it seems you have trouble understanding that the so-called "evidence" for the EU does not necessarily support only the EU. And that the EU - as you explain it, anyway - would require changes in the laws of physics that would put Nancy Leider to shame.

__________________
If ignorance is bliss, why is the world so full of misery?

As in a similar fashion, some of the cosmic observations we see are not explained exlusively by Big Bang cosmology. For example, red shift, which could be Doppler, and equally could be non-Doppler.

Regards,
Ian Tresman

I suppose... (Though I would like to know how you EUers explain the increasing red shift... and protogalaxies having the highest red shift...)

But the BB does not violate the known laws of physics in such a massive way as the EU. [-(

__________________
If ignorance is bliss, why is the world so full of misery?

Rather than extract the specific suggestion, I will take the liberty of pointing you to a page on Red Shift on the Electric Cosmos Website, where you will find the relevant information.

Perhaps you'll follow-up by looking up some of the other Web sites mentioned as well, if for no other reason than to see that it's not just one or two crackpots that are investigating the Electric Universe.

And we haven't even mentioned that really whacky stuff yet!

I like to think that neither theory violates any laws as such, only that there are some observations that each one find hard to explain.

Regards,
Ian Tresman

All the discussion only demonstrate the inability from the mainstream to understand the dynamics of Plasma and Space Plasma.
http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/elec_currents.html

Until that time you can always live on fairy tale like Black Holes,Dark Matter and Dark Energy as well as other mathematical manipulations as demonstrated by Jerry Jensen.
Cutting the Cord on the Big Bang
http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=14433

CIO!!!

I don't think plasma cosmology was even around in 1955. It wasn't rejected or ignored, it wasn't even born.

Also remember the first radio telescope wasn't built until 1932. Radio astronomy was still in its infancy.

Noone said they were. Even within the BBT, there are many sub-theories all attempting to figure out how the universe works. Theories themselves can vary over a decent range. From expanding singuarlities to 4+ dimension brane collsions. We range from standard quantum physics to string theories with 26 dimensions.

Yet, EU is pretty much one theory, with a few minor derevations. Not only is EU pretty consolidated, it's very arrogant. Where most people build up and revise existing theories, EU says they're almost all completely wrong. It's not a case of Copernicus saying the planets orbit the sun, not Earth. That, while important, was just a modification of how the solar system works. EU is trying to make the jump from "stars are candles embedded in a giant dome" to complicated celestial mechanics in one fell swoop.

If there's one that mainstream cosmology has shown, it's that it's not closeminded to new theories. It's just very critical of ALL theories and requires new theories to be robust, applicable and well, professional.

I'm not saying plasma isn't important, the understanding of how stars work requires a lot of plasma physics. However, I sincerely doubt that electricity plays the role the EU says it does.

__________________
People who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do.

Plasma Cosmology was born around 1950
http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/pl...rse.intro.html
...Synchrotron radiation is named after the particle accelerators developed in the 1930's and 1940's to produce high-energy electrons. In 1950 Hannes AlfvÈn, Nicolai Herlofson, and Karl Kiepenheuer brought this form of plasma radiation to astronomer's attention. Alfvén, who later won a Nobel prize in physics for his solar studies, proposed that streams of electrons move at nearly the speed of light along magnetic-field lines not only in Earth's magnetosphere and above the Sun, but also through the cosmos. If so, sheets and ropes of electric current should crisscross the universe in ever-increasing sizes.
It is actually rejected even with many observations confirming predictions made by Elfven.


As I said earlier this model of stars proposed by Thonrnhill on the Holoscience site as nothing to do with Plasma Cosmology proposed by Hannes Elfven Elfven and Anthony Peratt.
As you can verified here
http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/universe.html

http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/papers.html

Out of curiousity, you do know that electrons and electricity are two completely different things don't you?

__________________
People who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do.

Black holes are very much proven to exist. Just because the human mind cannot yet comprehend something does not meant that it isn't real...

Dark matter is out there, we just don't know what it is. I'm willing to bet it's baryonic, as opposed to being made of supersymmetric particles or stuff like that.

Dark energy = zero-point energy, which is definitely there if quantum mechanics is correct.

Jerry Jenson may not like the BB, but at least the man has the sense not to embrace something far less possible.

And in case you haven't figured it out, the probability that "Lyndon Ashmore" is not a reliable information source is higher than it ought to be.

Ciao to you, too...

Whatever you like to think, one of those theories definitely violates some laws. And not the ones that humans have invented.

This is my last post on this thread. I am tired of dealing with such high levels of intentional ignorance and illogic; therefore, I wash my hands clean of this whole business.

Do not think that I am admitting defeat; I am admitting victory. This laughable parody of a theory has been beaten to death, yet you refuse to stop posting the same things, over and over and over again. I see not the use of beating a dead theory.

I hope this thread is locked soon, because it serves no purpose as of now.

Goodby, all. See you on another thread.

__________________
If ignorance is bliss, why is the world so full of misery?

Yep....Then?

Contrary to your assumptions -The Plasma Universe- Cosmology proposed by Hannes Elfven and Anthony Peratt is well -alive and kicking-.

Just waiting around the corner.

They remain a mathematical hypothetical at the time of writing. Fact. Like it or not.

It's out there alright. Far out!

If.

Well, he hasn't committed himself, which is fair enough, but he has certainly not dismissed it. In fact he has speculated on an EM Tensor as a potential explanation for gravitational forces ... a big departure, to be sure, from mainstream theories, but far be it from me to speak for him.

Humans don't invent scientific laws. Science measures, observes, and documents Natural law. Science, broadly speaking, comprises of CAT (Currently accepted theory), and the Process/Method.

But CAT is always subservient to the Process. You cannot ignore evidence because it contradicts CAT, as this undermines the ideals of science.

Is this reasonable behaviour?

This is a discussion, not a sport. But congratulations on your self-declared victory.

It should be locked on your say so?

A couple of comments.

On the contrary, many have been observed. Fact. It just happens that you don't accept the evidence. Of course most of us here have already come to the conclusion that you've got your EU blinders on and refuse to accept any evidence that contradicts your pre-suppositions. Most of us have also reached the conclusion that your opinions have been answered and until you come up with something new anything you say is unimportant.


This is a discussion? [python] I came here for a discussion. No, you came here for a discussion. [/python]

While I don't think the thread should be locked, I do think it's run its course. You don't agree with us (me, gullible, mid, and others) and we don't agree with you (soupdragon, the late unlamented LM Wong, the late, unlamented Orion38) . Further discussion is unproductive.

__________________
"I often say that when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind." - William Thompson, 1st Baron Lord Kelvin

"If it was so, it might be, and if it were so, it would be, but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic!" - Tweedledee

This isn't right. This isn't even wrong. - Wolfgang Pauli

Not quite. The amount of evidence for black holes grows almost daily. I hope you're not waiting to "see" one.

Again, refusal to acknowledge evidence does not mean it isn't there.

I sure hope you're joking. I won't even bother to talk about the evidence for QM.

What evidence would this be? #-o

What? More snake oil?

Your approach to this thread is easily summarised. The EU must be wrong because it contradicts GR.

However, as I have already stated, and you have steadfastly ignored, empiricism is evidential. Scientific Theory is always subservient to The Process. If the evidence contradicts a theory, then it is the theory that needs changing. It is no good ignoring the evidence.

The EU has many merits, as has been demonstrated. Of particular note is the work of Perratt and Alfven.

Perhaps GR will reign as King of the Castle for some time. I wouldn't bet on it, however, given it's current heavy reliance on hypotheticals. As you well know, Gravity Waves and Gravitons remain hypothetical. OK, we know that GR has a relationship with Mass, but, yet again, the Higgs Boson also remains hypothetical! And don't get me started on Dark Matter/Energy...

Dismissing EU out of hand is clearly a case of double standards. Fifteen people have voted in favour of it being worthy of further consideration...

And Jerry Jensen has noted that problems with the BB may slant things in the direction of Plasma models, in the last paragraph of this post