Peratt's Plasma Universe Down

[Aristarchus]

Why is this even being entertained as a serious topic piece on this forum? This has already been answered on at least two other TB topics. Just because Nereid wants us to conclude for us not to believe our lying eyes, should it then follow that we have to answer again in a game of every which way but loose?

D. Scott reiterates the fundamentals of electrical engineering as applied to many fields of human endeavor, illustrating when experimental knowledge has been correctly or incorrectly applied and where pitfalls may be expected (Maxwell’s equations derive from Faraday’s experiments twenty equations with twenty unknowns, which were reduced to four by H. Hertz and O. Heaviside four decades later). As Scott points out, in engineering, the correctness of the application is obvious; the device either works as designed or does not. However, in less accessible environments such as space and cosmic plasma, the information gathered is often not obvious, insufficiently located (Earth or satellite), or incomplete. In addition, of course, controlled laboratory experiments – the final adjudicator in science – are typically absent in space research. As the backdrop for this elucidation, Scott uses the multidisciplinary origins of the plasma universe[5].

A document that is worth more than a cursory glance is that of C.J. Ransom and W. Thornhill, who recognized many planetary features as suggestive of marks from electrical discharges. They report experimental results that will give those of us who study such phenomena, and likely our planetary geologist colleagues, good reason to ponder.

http://plasmauniverse.info/downloads/Ed ... Plasma.pdf

“It is gratifying to see the work of my mentor, Nobel Laureate Hannes Alfvén enumerated with such clarity. I am also pleased to see that Dr. Scott has given general readers such a lucid and understandable summary of my own work.”

– Anthony L. Peratt, PhD, USC, Fellow of the IEEE (1999), former scientific advisor to the U.S. Department of Energy and member of the Associate Laboratory Directorate of the Los Alamos National Laboratory. He is the author of Physics of the Plasma Universe and numerous published papers. http://www.mikamar.biz/book-info/tes-a.htm

[fosborn]

Nereid »However, given how central Thornhill and Scott are to EU theory, and how closely the two websites seem to be linked, I wonder whether it's only a matter of time before the notice reads 'holoscience and thunderbolts'?

I have had time to think about this. I think we should feel slighted to have not been included.

[JohnMT]

Holoscience?...merging with...Thunderbolts?

So what and what is the big deal?

Does it really matter?

Back on Topic.

It seems to me, as I have said before, that Anthony Peratt was 'warned off' and what we are seeing now is the aftermath of some nasty relentless individual/s who will do their utmost to scorn the fact that Peratt, being probably the most leading authority on Plasma Cosmology in the world, has had some tentative dealings with the EU team/fraternity etc.

So I ask a question:

What's up with these guys, whoever they might be?

Have the EU theorists hit a nerve somewhere...indeed so bad that it really hurts?

Surely, whatever the likes of Anthony Peratt (and others too) might do in there own spare time is their own business, is it not?

So why all the fuss from these agitators.

Just a few thoughts.

Cheers,

John

[Shelgeyr]

This has probably been asked and answered before, and if so then please forgive the repeat...

Would someone who authoritatively knows please clearly define these three entities (areas of study? world views?)?

• Plasma Cosmology
  Plasma Universe
  Electric Universe

I'm fairly certain that I've gotten the definitions of "Plasma Cosmology" and "Plasma Universe" reversed from time to time, and I flat don't know what the difference is - if there is one - between "Plasma Universe" and "Electric Universe". I have always assumed they were the same thing, and that neither likely were "the one that also covered Plasma Mythology".

While I'm pretty sure that I know what "I think", i.e. which views I hold, I no longer have any idea what the proper term even is for what I think.

[Siggy_G]

This is the way I see it:

Plasma Universe is simply the recognition that more than 99% of the observable universe is matter in the plasma state, and that plasma physics is an important field. This is in no conflict with standard models either, but probably opens a door to plasma cosmology. Here's a site independant of Peratt or EU that explains it:
Space Weather Center: Plasma Universe
... and PlasmaUniverse.info explanation (Peratt)

Plasma Cosmology is based on the plasma universe notion, but takes a step further and attempts to explain the evolution (not origin) and structure of the universe in view of plasma processes - and especially the effects of Birkeland Currents. It contradicts the standard cosmological model. Key persons are: Kristian Birkeland, Hannes Alfven, Eric Lerner and Anthony Peratt. Here's Peratt's brief version of it:
PlasmaUniverse.info: Cosmology
Alv Egeland: Kristian Birkeland - The First Space Scientist (see abstract)

Electric Space is another term, also a part of Plasma Cosmology - and seems to be the reminder that there exists electric currents in space and that they have effects, especially in regards to the Sun and space weather.
PlasmaUniverse.info - Electric Space exhibition

The Electric Universe is an extension of the Plasma Cosmology notions, of how Birkeland Currents explains many significant cosmic phenomena, that also includes an additional notion: the Sun and stars receiving pinched electric energy externally and radiates as a result of a discharge glow and electrodynamics. This contradicts the standard solar model and has not been forwarded by Plasma Cosmology. It also attempts to explain planetary surface patterns and cometary effects, as a signature of large scale electric discharges. It also has an extended overall reach, as it points out the electric nature of structures at multiple magnitudes, from micro to macro. It's an attempt of making "a coherent Big Picture of our situation in the universe".
Holoscience.info / Wallace Thornhill: Electric Universe synopsis

[Shelgeyr]

Thank you very much, Siggy_G!

Two things:
1) I'm not certain what you mean under the Electric Universe about the stars/pinches have "...not been forwarded by Plasma Cosmology". I thought the whole "electric star' / "arclight in space" idea was a Plasma Cosmology one - is this not the case?

2) *IF* "Plasma Mythology" is a subset of any of these, where does it belong? I would have assumed, again, Plasma Cosmology, at least in as much as I would have assumed that basic "Electric Universe" theory wouldn't bother dealing with mythological origins. But seeing how (I guess) Plasma Mythology could be considered a superset containing (among other things) "Saturn Theory", and how I would think Saturn Theory would have to acknowledge the physics / physical processes of "electric stars" (namely regarding the expulsion of mass / calving of planets and/or binary stars as a electric-stress-reduction mechanism), I'm not sure where the overlaps occur and where they don't. So hopefully you can see how I'm confused about the nomenclature here...

Did/does Birkeland, Alfven, Lerner, and/or Peratt specifically NOT ascribe to the "electric star" theory (or distance themselves if they addressed it at all)? I kindof thought it was foundational to most or all of these theories...

[Siggy_G]

I thought the whole "electric star' / "arclight in space" idea was a Plasma Cosmology one - is this not the case?

In the introduction to the Electric Sun hypothesis, Donald E Scott states the following:

In the Plasma Universe model, these cosmic sized, low-density currents create the galaxies and the stars within those galaxies by the electromagnetic z-pinch effect. It is only a small extrapolation to ask whether these currents remain to power those stars

I see your confusion in regards to the terms, because Scott also mentions the Plasma Universe model, while I'll dare to say that he refers to Peratt's galaxy formation model, which strictly speaking is a part of Plasma Cosmology (as I understand it). Anyway, it is evident that the Electric Sun / electric stars model is manifested by Donald E Scott and Wallace Thornhill, who also has written a paper on The Z-pinch morphology of supernova 1987A and Electric Stars (in addition to the holoscience articles). However, the idea that stars and other cosmic phenomena speaks of electric discharge theory should also be historically credited to Kristian Birkeland and especially C E R Bruce.
(C E R Bruce - Successful Predictions of the Electrical Discharge Theory (...))
(C E R Bruce - Cosmic Thunderstorms)

2) *IF* "Plasma Mythology" is a subset of any of these, where does it belong?

Anthony Peratt, who is one of the key persons of Plasma Cosmology, have in the later years writte papers on ancient plasma formations in the sky and rock images. The Electric Universe theory have also embraced such ideas, as they seem to confirm earlier and stronger electrical activity within the relatively recent human history. David Talbott, one of he key persons of the Electric Universe, as well as Rens van der Sluijs (TPODs) also describes comparative mythology aspects and how they may tie in with electrical (plasma) phenomena.

Did/does Birkeland, Alfven, Lerner, and/or Peratt specifically NOT ascribe to the "electric star" theory (or distance themselves if they addressed it at all)?

They haven't described the stars as being powered externally - and I don't know if they don't find the notion plausible, given Scott's words about the extrapolation of the plasma cosmology galaxy model. Alfven still described the Sun being powered by fusion processes (or atleast he didn't revisit the solar model itself), while describing the electrodynamics of its surrounding environment. Peratt also rather describes the formation and condensation of matter that later becomes stars, and not how they are powered after that point.