New Finding Shows Super-Huge Space Tornados Power the Auroras

“Also, I note no response to the “dark” matter, “dark” energy, ect. ect. assertion for why Plasma Cosmology does provide a better explanation than “modern” astronomy.”

You’re making the claim that plasma cosmology provides a better explanation than the currently accepted ideas – the burden of proof is on you my friend. All of the mainstream stuff is continually published in journals, so you can look it up any time there. Your theories are not so easy to find, and seeing as you are promoting it as an alternative to the published materials, I would think that you would be more than happy to reference the finest , most cogent and the most rigorous refutations of mainstream theory and defenses of your own.

I would be happy to read through the link you mentioned at my leisure – bit busy to go through it in detail at the moment though. Maybe when I get home from work I’ll go through some. At first glance though, it all seems a bit vague – take this example:

“If our theory of gigantic electric arcs large enough to carve Valles Marineris is correct, a great deal of sulfur may have also been created in that cataclysm and spread around the planet.”

For one – HOLY SH_T! The theory is that electical arcs created Valles Marineris? That cannot be a serious consideration, surely! Two – the prediction is that ‘a great deal of Sulfur MAY have been made’. Wow – concrete – don’t put yourself out on a limb or anything Thornhill.

Another example:

“Telesto, Calypso and Pandora may not have had their craters and rilles softened by a layer of dust. Their craters and rilles may have been literally softened by melting.”

May this and possibly that. It doesn’t give me a great deal of confidence for the rest of the website I’m afraid…

And I agree – ‘dark matter’ and particularly ‘dark energy’ are such loosely defined concepts that it is little more than a fudge factor. In fact, they are basically names for discrepancies. Whether these discrepancies can be explained by the proposed solutions is something else altogther. Maybe they can, maybe they cannot and we’ll come up with something else. The point is, I’m not denying that astronomy has huge gaps of understanding, or promoting the idea that we understand everything and that all is well. I simply happen to believe that we are on the right path, which you claim we are not. Fair enough, but when we strip away all the BS, I’ve seen no convincing arguments from plasma cosmology, and even less rigour. I look at websites that claim to expound these theories, and all they contain is verbal diarrhea and hand-waving vagueness. Prove me wrong though. If plasma cosmology is a true description of nature, then it will literally explain everything we can observe or see. So get to it and show the scientists a thing or two if you’re able.

“So-called “dark’ matter: Pixie dust for “modern” astronomers stuck in Never, Never Land.”

That was a good one – you worked on that one for a while, didn’t you?

As soon as I saw the title of this post, I figured that the EU/PC nuts would be wetting their knickers in delight. They remind me of those punters, that you often see at the race track, who scream, shout, rant and rave when their 11/10 fav. (BIG DEAL!) horse romps home, but they completely ignore the fact that favourites have an average strike rate of ~30% and at such a lousy return price that the poor punter makes a net loss in the long term — bookies love people like that!

Ian O’Neill:

So many times I see hopelessly misinterpreted physics theory being used as “proof” that there is some kind of mystical all-powerful electric current that floods the Universe (explaining everything from craters on the Moon to the highly bizarre ‘Electric Sun’ theory). Unfortunately many of these ideas are so cringe-worthy, it is an affront to plasma physics.

Exactly! I have asked this question before of the EU/PC proponents, to which I did not get a plausible answer, so I will ask of them again: What is the source of that “mystical all-powerful electric current that floods the Universe” and allegedly powers the “Electric Sun”?

Ian Tresman Says:
“…the source of astrophysical electric currents is simply the movement of plasma in a magnetic field…”

This is the point where I could never follow the EU ideas – it comes across to me as a chicken and egg scenario: In my World, the current has to be there in order to create the plasma. Seen through my eyes, this notion amounts to a perpetual motion machine of the “first type”.

Wowowow, no where is there any reference to EU!

Standard model did already know that solar wind gets guided to the poles where because of Earths magnetic fields where they cause aurora’s, what is new that these magnetic fields tend to behave like tornado’s.

Also these magnetic fields are powerd by an outside source than plasma itself. Rember! EU does not allow gravity and EU does not allow nuclear fusion, and also no magnetic reconnection.

Remember! EU clames that plasma tests in laboratory proves EU, but when I pull out the plug from my plasma ball, all plasma revert to it’s normal state.

There is absolutely NO relationship between EU and this, except that they both happen to have the same name like plasma, electrical current and magnetic field, but there it stops.

I am sorry, you cannot clame to believe in EU and say in the same sentence “but I also believe in gravity”. If you believe in gravity then you you cannot say that you are promoting EU anymore since you deny the very core that EU is! That gravity is caused by the flatning of the subtronic orbits of the strucutures inside the electron which has not been proven so far!

Claming that you believe that EU is the only truth out there but gravity does exist, is like saying that you do believe in God but Jezus is fictional.

Plasma, magnetic fields, electrical current, are part of the standard model! Together with all other forces…

EU clames only to have the electromagnetic and the rest is the result of this electromagnetic which is clearly disproven by many large collider experiments.

Yes one unified force could explain electro-magnetiscm but electromagnetism DOES NOT explain the unifying force!!!! BIG difference!!! It is only 25% of the 4 fources!

I wrote:

Dave Finton wrote:

“Where EU disassociates itself with reality is that they insist EM is the *only* dominating force.”

Please Dave, with all due respect, show me ONE place in the published EU literature where this is stated. NOT some ’supporter’ who has things ballsed up, but within the published works of the EU crowd. Just ONE is all I ask.

Dave Finton responded:

Pretty much all of them. Believe me, I’ve read many. My favorite is the one that claimed that electric arcs created the craters on the moon. You probably know which one I am talking about.

This response doesn’t answer the question, nor even touch on it! Please tell me, where in the published EU literature, it is stated that “EM is the *only* dominating force.” Craters on the moon have little if anything to do with your initial statement.

I also wrote:

The problem here is, that EU is grossly MISrepresented by many, both supporters and opponents thereof.

Olaf let fly with a typically strawman MISrepresentation of EU, making claims which are quite wrong about the theory, and then ridiculing his own claims. I rest my case.

Cheers, Dave.