I don't believe there is any one specific plasma cosmology, I don't adhere to one, I am just saying I believe they are on the right track with the emphasis on plasma and magnetism. And you might very well be right that there is insufficient evidence, but I think we would also have to admit that the funding isn't there, it is consumed by searching for the likes of dark matter. Just to give you an idea of the plasma interactions that take plasma even in planetary systems, check this out. It is horribly technical beyond my ability to analyze, but I have read it multiple times to try to get some grasp on what is going on. http://www.igpp.ucla.edu/public/mkivelso/Publications/Ch21.pdf Also keep in mind, plasma can be very difficult to detect, especially considering that a gas that is only 1% ionized still behaves as a plasma, and those gases can be very diffuse. More than arguing for a plasma cosmology, I prefer to raise awareness of the profound effects it has particularly in space physics, and even moreso for exposing the multitude of issues with our current models. As far as gravity, I tentatively suspect that it is more of a pressure by the quantum vacuum, so the moon and earth are pushed together because there is less pressure waves between them than pushing on them from the outside because the mass of the moon and earth absorb waves that coincide with their size/density. I will respond a bit more tomorrow! Let us keep it going, this is quite enjoyable.
I prefer to say I think there's an afterlife. Believe implies an unwillingness to question. Anyways I think you go to the afterlife you believe in. If you think it's hell well hell it is for you. I'm gonna be in a place with rivers of whisky rainforests of weed and more pussy than I could ever eat, jamming with all the dead legends for all eternity to inspire the minds of mortal visitors. And I hope I can haunt people
All I know is if there is a God, he deliberately created weed for us to enjoy.....as evidenced by my profile picture.
They've disproved most of the fundamentals of the electric universe, just from the lack of flow of plasma. That's pretty well the cornerstone of what folks call plasma cosmology, if there is no flow of plasma towards the sun and our planet isn't charged, there is no electricity in space that powers our sun and creates our planets or holds them in place. There's practically no air in space much less any super amount of plasma ions to power our sun, create our planets, and hold it all in place. We would definitely be able to observe any such amount, it would take no small indistinguishable amount of plasma to power our sun, to make our celestial bodies orbit, or to create planets. The place would look exactly like a nebula, it would take such a crazy amount of plasma to do all these things. And even then our planet would have to have a serious polar charge, which it doesn't. If all these factors were true, the amount of forces exerted on our planet would still be minute, nowhere near what "gravity" is. Plasma and Gravity - Physics Help Forum This guy explains it very well! The one with the spock picture. Breaks it down great. I'm with you on the quantum pressure, this sounds like another name for dark matter though. I think it's a mixture of that with matter just gravitates towards itself through some force that brings like to like. Some pressure we can't observe pushes the universe outward creating cosmic rip currents that bring masses in the flow together. Then these masses also have some force that is like as well as unlike magnetism to pull the observable matter together from incredible distances. You are right where our physics is flawed, we are trying to discover this quantum pressure. We can't see it, can't touch it, can't observe it, but something is there according to our calculations lol. You spoke earlier of a higher consciousness creating us, what if perhaps the evolution of life isn't to reach the stars but to reach within. We're far closer to creating a convincing virtual world than we are reaching light speeds, and we could also distort time in the virtual world reaching a perceived immortality. Perhaps we are born to be gods of own creations and this just continues forever. People creating dream worlds within dream worlds.
I assume you haven't looked into this independently because there is a plethora of information on the overwhelming influence of plasma at every single level of space physics. I don't fault you because this stuff isn't espoused in the mainstream, and with the suppoaed debunking one gets disillusioned with the idea that even looking into it is fruitless. As I have said, I am not advocating plasma cosmology, I just encouraged you look into it to get you in the direction of considering plasma itself. The criticisms against it for the reasons of magnetic problems are probably launched by people that think there is only one kind of magnetism (as your example of a bar magnet), when in fact there is something like 12 different kinds of magnetism, so that criticism I don't take seriously. As far as the amount of plasma, well plasma comes in three flavors, dark, glow and arc, dark being most of space plasma, second being glow, like the aurora or the sun which is plasma, and lastly arc, like lightning/sparks. +99.999% of the universal matter is in plasma form, followed by gas then liquid then solid making up tiny fractions of a percent. When you say it would look like a nebula you are assuming it will be predominantly in glow form which is not the case. I encourage tou to at least breeze through the pdf I linked above and I will send another for you to breeze through just so you get a sense of the influential power of plasma. What really astounds me is why they don't talk much about it in public spheres, all we hear about is gravity and dark nonsense, coupled with the euphemisms I mentioned before. Another interesting thing you will notice is the increase in publications hinting that perhaps we need a new physics altogether. I think, as I believe I said much earlier, physics has been on the wrong track for about a century but slowly the paradigm is shifting. I will link the other interesting reference tomorrow, it is on my computer and I am on mobile right now. Your last two sentences are indeed thought provoking, boy we could jump down that hole too hahaha.
I've discussed it in the past with colleagues back in college and went over some meat of it but we all wrote it off as it's just counter indicated by too much observed evidence. It doesn't have any sensible math behind it, none of the experiments can be peer duplicated, it just seems off. So my research is pretty limited to first hand experience, very rudimentary. And I'm no astronomer or physicist, I studied medicine but I have a lot of third hand research on similar topics that I'm trying to use here for some understanding but bare with me lol. For any such amount of force to be there, we would require far more plasma. And we would definitely be able to observe it visually or with instruments, and even if we had the amount, our planets and sun would be in entirely different locations behaving completely different. Planets would have to be charged and the magnetic force that would be required would be far greater than what the sun currently exudes, and we would have to be far closer. If charged plasma ions were holding us in place, the flow of ions from the sun would not be a single way stream with mixed charge either, there would be a stream of positive ions from the sun, and a stream of negative ions back to the sun. This is kind of how they applied the bar magnet comparison. I didn't come up with the comparison, some big wig career physicist/astronomer did. It's dumb and simple but it does give the idea after they explain it with more complex means I think. I didn't read the entirety of your pdf, pretty darn long and I've not much time, but I did skim it and read the conclusion, what I understand it was studying the behavior of moons in the ionosphere of a gas giant and how they are affected by solar winds and flux. I don't know how applicable it is, again I'm no physicist but I imagine the interrelation of EMG forces exerted on a moon orbiting a gas giant in its ionosphere is very different from a planet revolving the sun from a major distance. They're able to observe this definite ionic influence down to a single degree of orbital tilt, but we can't see squat of any such influence from the sun? Also again the behavior and existence of flux and solar winds actually counter indicate the electric universe theory. I'm just not very big on it when we understand things like how our sun works through fusion and not some constant flow of plasma that funnels toward it from all around us. There's just so many contraindications. I think we can compromise here, we're both talking about similar if not the exact same forces, just calling them different names and explaining it with different means it seems. I think any difference isn't much consequence to our discussion really. Let's discuss the idea of consciousness creating consciousness next! You mentioned it earlier but let's expound. I'll be back tonight. Good conversation is hard to come by and this is very good!
I wonder if some of your assumptions on the ramifications are correct, for instance the distance of the planets. I wouldn't argue it because I am a meathead, but I do think they are presumptuous considering most people have no idea of the effects of magnetohydrodynamics. Even the founder of plasma cosmology, Hannes Alfven, had many of his papers rejected from journals even though they were legitimate, not because they were wrong but the people reviewing them didn't understand them, he went on to win the Nobel prize. Here is the link I promised last night if you are interested. https://www.nap.edu/read/10993/chapter/1#iii We can drop this part of our discussion though, just remember me in 30years when physics pulls its head out of its ass lmao. I'll respond to the consciousness topic in another post!
They're not so much assumptions or presumptions as far as I can tell, they show their work, I really am trying to stay unbiased here; there's a lot of math behind all this in the articles I posted. But a lot of what Hannes stated, is disproved by simple observations we've made; no calculations needed. I mean Hannes used very little to almost no calculations at all in his proposal in the first place. We can calculate a million different interactions about ionospheres from planets in entirely other galaxies, don't you think we would be able to observe such a strong ionic pull that could hold an entire planet in its place around a sun? It would be utterly distinguishable, we're talking pink elephant in the room. The flow of ions between the two bodies would be stellar and completely polar, then consider the flow between the sun and the other bodies in our solar system. There is no charged flow from the sun and even if there were, the amount required would be super massive and have to be entirely polar. Solar wind is neutrally charged, and there's just not enough of it to hang anything. Our world would be so different, I like one of the physicists examples: if the Earth were held in place by ionic forces alone, the Earth would have to have a definite polar charge; if the Earth had a polar charge you would be able to make hovercrafts just with sheets of metal that have the same charge as the planet. And we can even calculate where the Earth would be if it were held in relation with ionic forces similar to moons in magnetospheres. Neutrino flux and solar winds match our current model of physics perfectly, the electric universe can't explain either and if the electric universe theory were true, neither would exist. From different sources I read that Hannes could not duplicate his results, none of his peers could duplicate his results, and he couldn't even show his work as to how he arrived to his results through calculations. He used a lot of faith and methodology, many people called him altruistic. Everything I spoke on the matter I pretty well took from current or past research/observations performed by our physicist and astronomers, about none of these posts on plasma/emg are my words but the words of men who've dedicated their life to this craziness. Hannes was a brilliant man who won the Nobel prize indeed but it wasn't for his electric universe theory, he made some serious contributions to our understanding of plasma physics I'm reading about. I really don't know any of this for certain, I can only infer from these others who know the math/models; they seem to make sense though with a lot of hard evidence. I think there's probably a good reason the electric universe is fading and is not peer reviewed. No Big Bang In Memory Of Hannes Alfven A lot of whats in this article is scattered about everywhere but this is a very concise post about his history. I've been reading pages on him to come to the same result. And this forum post here is great and pretty well sums up most of whats wrong with electric universe. A Plasma Universe
It's a readmit of a serious hypochondriac/Munchhausen syndrome so I count on working late tonight haha. Alright lets get to it: so lets start with whether a higher or an equal consciousness creates us. When I imagine us creating a garden/sandbox for ourselves, I imagine it would be mostly pleasurable with little to no pain/consequence. After all, that's what people imagine as a land of milk and honey. But our reality isn't so, perhaps we sought consequence and pain after a boringly predictable utopia life with no serious consequence? I believe such a stagnation is definitely possible, machines doing everything for us to the point of us not needing to do anything, currency potentially being non-existent; medicine so advanced there's nothing incurable, even figuring out how to stop the aging process. We've reached the limits of understanding our universe. I imagine we'll conquer our 7 deadly sins as intelligence increases as well, leading to a more satisfied people that don't desire much similar to monks who relinquish all existential holds. I also like the idea that Arthur Clarke had, that the limit of consciousness will be implanting ourselves upon lattices of light and becoming demigods that can travel and manipulate anything to any extent. Not so much related but if we're far advanced past our organic limits, could we be able to transcend a physical body, what would we move to? Electrons in a computer? Lattices of light?
Brilliant! This causes me to think of a quote by Tesla "According to an adopted theory, every ponderable atom is differentiated from a tenuous fluid, filling all space merely by spinning motion, as a whirl of water in a calm lake. By being set in movement this fluid, the ether, becomes gross matter. Its movement arrested, the primary substance reverts to its normal state. It appears, then, possible for man through harnessed energy of the medium and suitable agencies for starting and stopping ether whirls to cause matter to form and disappear. At his command, almost without effort on his part, old worlds would vanish and new ones would spring into being. He could alter the size of this planet, control its seasons, adjust its distance from the sun, guide it on its eternal journey along any path he might choose, through the depths of the universe. He could make planets collide and produce his suns and stars, his heat and light; he could originate life in all its infinite forms. To cause at will the birth and death of matter would be man's grandest deed, which would give him the mastery of physical creation, make him fulfill his ultimate destiny." Also "To create and to annihilate material substance, cause it to aggregate in forms according to his desire, would be the supreme manifestation of the power of Man's mind, his most complete triumph over the physical world, his crowning achievement, which would place him beside his Creator, make him fulfill his Ultimate Destiny." Interestingly, some believe the serpent in the Bible is actually the good guy, when he says ye shall be as gods, that lines up with what Tesla is saying haha. Being a god will be boring so we will create a universe just like this one.
That's some amazing thoughts on that old snake! I don't think Satan is wrong, its a two sides of the same coin sort of business, he is a part of God afterall; much like Melkor in Tolkiens work he is God's ambition and power given form. He cannot help himself, it is who he is after all; the most powerful of angels that is driven to create his own music in this universe. And while his music clashes with the "good" lords, greater things unpredicted arise from this discord. Ambition is a part of the lord, as he is able to create things of it, he gave a lesser creation Satan ambition. Is God wrong for having ambition? Is ambition wrong? It is a matter of desire vs satisfaction I think, and while desire isn't ambition; they are very similar. Can one be satisfied without sating ambition? Eve was unsatisfied enough to even offer the snake any regard at all, why would a satisfied person even turn their head? She was so unsatisfied that she conversed with the snake, even did as it bid. She was not deceived, she knew not to eat the apple, but she chose the potentiality over her current actuality. Makes you wonder, what would such a lord intend for us, perhaps it wants us to defy it? Does it want us to become all that we can be or would it prefer us to be perfect little play things in its perfect place? I would think that would be boring and predictable for our creator. What makes life interesting I think is unpredictability, discovery, innovation; it is pushing the limits. When you've hit the limit with nothing left to learn, its an eternity of nothing. What is there to do but to return to simpler unknowing means by diverging oneself to simpler lesser creations for a garden to play in with?
Sometimes I wonder if humanity can rise above nature, such as greed, fear, distrust, envy, murder etc what could our reality become? It seems we are literally holding ourselves back from vast potential. I am an advocate of anarchy, primarily because I think that system follows from principles of truth and is a deduction from a Creator, but also because I believe it could unleash human potential. We are in a very childish stage of spiritual development in my opinion. As you mentioned in another thread, to experience joy we have to be able to experience its opposite, but if we learned and constantly chose the positive aspects perhaps our connection with our consciousness would be heightened. Maybe we would, as you suggested, become god and realize we are bored and fraction ourself back into a physical universe. Im all over the place here...
I think we could with enough time and chance, humanity has already made such moral milestones in the last 100 years alone. But it took us over 200,000 years to get to this point lol. Desire is a dangerous thing, it is at the root of all our sins, but at the same time without a desire for more or for change what would we be left with? Seems like an unanswerable conundrum but I feel there might be a focus point of balance between satisfaction and ambition. Ambitious enough to seek change, but satisfied enough to enjoy it. I believe in anarchy too, chaos and randomness is the nature of our universe; similar to how gaseous atoms chaotically impact one another in a confined space, that's our nature which leads to the greatest things we've never seen. Discord and chaos create greatness, things unforeseen, unimaginable; makes things interesting. I feel like there should be a balance between joy and pain, too much of either leads to desolation or stagnation. You lose all value of light when you have no dark, you can't have conflict or discord with no balance between two opposites. If we could create a society that perpetually felt joy and pleasure, nothing negative, I feel like we would lose all sense of the words in time, we would stagnate. Human nature has a way of forgetting things it hasn't experienced in time I feel. Think of a lifelong depressive patient, his constant sadness is his normal, maybe he has felt this way as long as he could remember; he doesn't feel any joy. He has grown accustomed to this constant degree of sadness. He doesn't know what really know the difference between sadness and normal at this point, he is numb to it. Joy is just a word to him and his life is normal to him. Imagine a person that was born and felt nothing but joy and pleasure their whole life, would they would not have any perspective on the value of it and be just as numb? Yeah this is a conversation that often leads everywhere lol, you read one striking sentence that produces 10 great thoughts then you're onto the next sentence! We are going to have to rename this thread as well, the "Norse Beef Late Night Brain Block" lol
Could we imagine if we slid the scale between pain 0 and joy 10 to 5-15 so simply lying or selfishness lead us to be unhappy and our joy would be not only our own joy but sympathetic joy when others are joyful. Obviously we have this to some extent already, but I can imagine a more interconnected emotional landscape. A little pain in someone else would equally impact those around them and cause a collective effort to remedy their pain. "When we speak of man, we have a conception of humanity as a whole, and before applying scientific methods to the investigation of his movement we must accept this as a physical fact. But can anyone doubt to-day that all the millions of individuals and all the innumerable types and characters constitute an entity, a unit? Though free to think and act, we are held together, like the stars in the firmament, with ties inseparable. These ties cannot be seen, but we can feel them. I cut myself in the finger, and it pains me: this finger is a part of me. I see a friend hurt, and it hurts me, too: my friend and I are one. And now I see stricken down an enemy, a lump of matter which, of all the lumps of matter in the universe, I care least for, and it still grieves me. Does this not prove that each of us is only part of a whole? For ages this idea has been proclaimed in the consummately wise teachings of religion, probably not alone as a means of insuring peace and harmony among men, but as a deeply founded truth. The Buddhist expresses it in one way, the Christian in another, but both say the same: We are all one. Metaphysical proofs are, however, not the only ones which we are able to bring forth in support of this idea. Science, too, recognizes this connectedness of separate individuals, though not quite in the same sense as it admits that the suns, planets, and moons of a constellation are one body, and there can be no doubt that it will be experimentally confirmed in times to come, when our means and methods for investigating psychical and other states and phenomena shall have been brought to great perfection. Still more: this one human being lives on and on. The individual is ephemeral, races and nations come and pass away, but man remains. Therein lies the profound difference between the individual and the whole." Nikila Tesla
@Travybear @JohnnyEvergreen I believe consciousness is primary to matter, i also think our physical form would change with our consciousness, so I don't see biology as a limitation, in fact our minds can explore imaginary realms that are beyond nature, or super natural. To be clear, when I say imaginary realms, I don't mean 'fake', I mean the realm of infinite possibility. So far in human ingenuity we have created a lot of things that were first conceived in the imaginary realm, while many of them are analagous to things in the natural realm, they are still novel.
BTW our brains are not simple in any respect, as far as we know it is the most complex thing in the universe. Granted we haven't gotten very far in the universe, but to say the brain is simple I must ask what you are comparing it to
Seeing your statement on how you believe our physical form, body if you will could/will change when our consciousness begins to evolve. Do you then believe that it's happened already? That some where out there someone at some point has made this transformation? Or are we referring more along the lines to humanity as a whole? Or...are we all on separate paths in this time frame with some higher consciously and some lower. With the goal of helping one another get there even if it takes multiple millenniums, epochs, or even eons?(hopefully not that long lol) If so and we were all as gods, how do you think that would play out? It seems like a hard pill to swallow from time to time. Do you think we would morph together into one god? I mean the list is endless. Imagine some folks having that power and what they'd attempt to do with it... Also yes I agree with the imaginary realm philosophy and that we as humans have created things once uncharted in the minds of modern men. So that leaves us with an infinite amount of creations leading up to the future and where it could go, and what could possibly be imagined after that. I guess is where the term infinite is coined. Who knows how far it goes and where we will be in 100 years, 1000 years, etc. I just hope collectively we countiue to awaken and become more aware of how we treat each other and how that directly will effect the days to come. Just like I've seen imbedded in the few posts here in this thread that I've had time to glance through, imagine a world where we all working coherently together. What could we truly accomplish? It would truly be a spectacle. Also pardon me for being everywhere and no where with my comments in this thread, as I've yet to have the time to sit and read hardly any of it. I soon will and maybe I can join in on some of the discussions, from what I've seen so far I can't wait. See you guys on the other side... J Evergreen