What do you think about this?
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4773590301316220374


Please watch the whole thing. Let's use it as our null hypothesis and compare it with our current theories. Does it make sense? What do you think?

:sleep:

I have lousy internet and here in an internet cafe in Bangkok, it doesn't seem much better with the video playing at around 1 minute to watch 1 second of video. So I gave up. Possibly you could give us the points you think which are important?

There were a few people on the physorg forum who believed in the electric universe but it has many basic problems with it which suggests it would not work (too few particles in space, MECO's aren't realistic, etc). I found a number of very basic mistakes in the links I was given to read on "plasma cosmology".

Well, why don't we start with those mistakes? What were they?

I have lousy internet and here in an internet cafe in Bangkok, it doesn't seem much better with the video playing at around 1 minute to watch 1 second of video. So I gave up. Possibly you could give us the points you think which are important?

There were a few people on the physorg forum who believed in the electric universe but it has many basic problems with it which suggests it would not work (too few particles in space, MECO's aren't realistic, etc). I found a number of very basic mistakes in the links I was given to read on "plasma cosmology".Why does it matter how many particles there are?
Is the idea that a single electron would fly away at tremendous speed because of an electromagnetic field in the plasma?

Or is it rather that each electron moves just a little, like normal electrics.

What do you think about this?
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4773590301316220374


Please watch the whole thing. Let's use it as our null hypothesis and compare it with our current theories. Does it make sense? What do you think?
Ok. I just watched the whole thing.

There's nothing to discuss. Seriously. It's just a bunch of statements about how everything (literally) that we currently understand about the universe is wrong and is perfectly explained by "plasma" cosmology.

Just a note. When discussing the relative strengths of magnetic fields vs gravity, how come they did not mention that the magnetic field falls of as the inverse cube of distance? Thus making it far weaker on cosmological scales than gravity?

How does gravity work anyways? Where's gravity in a subatomic level? And why it's not strong in a subatomic level?

I had a number of debates with Harry Costas on the physorg forum over this and each ended with him going off in a major sulk. His problem was that he was forever quoting links and providing little evidence and when you checked the links out, mistakes could be seen as recent as the first page of a 20-30+ page document. It did not encourage you to read too far. I know the major proponent for plasma cosmology was kicked off of the Hubble staff by NASA over the matter.

I remember little from our last debate a good part of a year ago. Electric currents are not going to flow in space where even at our closeness to the sun, there is maybe ten atoms per CM3 of space. Far less outside the solar system and less outside the galaxy. An electric current is electrons moving from shell to shell of atoms, so the current/electrons at one end of a wire are not the same electrons as at the other end of the wire, or even 1/1000th of an inch away. Electricity will not move through a vacuum.

Instead of black holes, plasma cosmology has Massive Eternally Collapsing Objects (MECO) where they are basically electric neutron stars and matter is ejected from them as they have no event horizon.

Truthseeker. I would say that there are three very basic forms. Particles (quarks, etc). Waves (all photons). And gravity, whatever that is. Since we have dimensions 1 upwards, I think of it as dimension nought, at our centre. It can best be demonstrated (this is just an idea) in a large body in space (planet, moon, star, etc) where without other close pulls on them, they are trying to fall in an unknown direction towards their own centre (which we perceive as their rotation).

Gravity works best on quantity. The more there is, the more gravity. At an atomic level, endless little sources (held together with nuclear forces). At our level, we exert no gravity worth mentioning. It's only when you have as much material in one place as an asteroid or more that you start to notice a pull.

Where's gravity in a subatomic level? And why it's not strong in a subatomic level?

One of the indirect tests for string theory is to see if gravity gets stronger at very small distances.
(A tiny/large increase in the inverse-square law could be due to extra dimensions, and put constrains on their sizes)

But what is the connection between the properties of gravity and its lack of strenght in small distances? Wouldn't that mean that gravity particles must concentrate on an incredible amount before gravity can be experienced on a large scale? And what is the connection between gravity and magnetism, since they both have similar properties?

Seems all confusing to me....

Seems all confusing to me....

Hum,
me too.
<off topic>
But, to explain the general weakness of gravity when compared to the other forces, according to an old theory, the forces and particle we see are strings; those stings exist in multi dimensions with one end fastened onto a brane. That brane for simplicity can be said to represent our spacetime. But the trick is that gravity is the simplest string , and that it can exist as a self-contained loop --- so it isn't fastened to our space time, but can move through the 9 other dimensions.
Simply, it is weak because it acts from another brane and has to spread out though other dimensions. The other three forces are strong because they are confined to only three dimensions.

And, as a guess, gravity may become stronger at very small distances due to the existence of other, as yet undiscovered partner particles to the graviton; and the quantum-mechanical interaction between them --- Or perhaps it may simply be due to the physical size of the graviton string loop; as this will cause the relativistically moving graviton to plot out a path length - the longer the path the less it can interact - and that dictates that the force is weak.

Of course, Just now these are pure speculations. M-theory may not be the correct theory to choose.
</off topic>

We don't even think but neutron stars are so powerful that a burp from one of them 50,000 lightyears away causes massive disturbances in Earth's ionosphere.

Truthseeker. Though it's old and generally ignored now, I still find the idea of thinking of space as a cloth handy. Put something on it and the depression represents gravity. The bigger (and denser/heavier) something is, the deeper the depression. If you have a ball rolling around another ball fast enough (orbital speed), it won't fall into the depression (gravity).

Magnetism only works on certrain materials: like iron, cobalt, nickel, etc. Or elements 26, 27, 28. Obviously something to do with their atomic make-up. Gravity works on all matter. Gravity only pulls. Magnetism repels and attracts. It can be induced into materials by using electricity to line up the atomic structure.

MetaKron. With temperatures into the billions, an escape velocity 2/3 that of light, a magnetic field of maybe trillions of gauss, etc, I don't think neutron stars can be ignored.

Hum,
me too.
<off topic>
But, to explain the general weakness of gravity when compared to the other forces, according to an old theory, the forces and particle we see are strings; those stings exist in multi dimensions with one end fastened onto a brane. That brane for simplicity can be said to represent our spacetime. But the trick is that gravity is the simplest string , and that it can exist as a self-contained loop --- so it isn't fastened to our space time, but can move through the 9 other dimensions.
Simply, it is weak because it acts from another brane and has to spread out though other dimensions. The other three forces are strong because they are confined to only three dimensions.

And, as a guess, gravity may become stronger at very small distances due to the existence of other, as yet undiscovered partner particles to the graviton; and the quantum-mechanical interaction between them --- Or perhaps it may simply be due to the physical size of the graviton string loop; as this will cause the relativistically moving graviton to plot out a path length - the longer the path the less it can interact - and that dictates that the force is weak.

Of course, Just now these are pure speculations. M-theory may not be the correct theory to choose.
</off topic>
Thank you. That explains a lot.