Plasma Cosmology & Electric Universe Theory

Some of you may have heard these terms used around the web before, but I’ll wager that most of you have not.  Frequent readers of this news site know that I’m a huge proponent of EU theory.  In this post I’ll try to give a brief overview of what the theory entails, and why you should support it.

Basically EU theory states the following:  The magnetic fields we see in space are created by ionized plasma which is electrically conductive.  Large electrical currents flow through space plasma, which can ultimately explain observations that are currently attributed to things such as black holes or dark matter.

EU theory does not accept “bending space” as a plausible explanation for observed cosmological phenomena, and instead relies on the known behavior of electrified plasma to explain observations.  The theory was originally put forth by Hannes Alfven, who won the Nobel Prize in plasma physics.

To get a better understanding of what plasma cosmology is all about, please watch this tutorial video.

The science behind plasma cosmology is much more “reality” based than standard cosmological theory.  Plasma cosmologists base their theories on laboratory observations of electrified plasma and then scale their observations up to galactic sizes.  This method allows them to test their theories against controlled lab experiments, which results in much more rational explanations being put forth.

If you would like to review a large collection of scientific papers put forth by plasma cosmologists, please check out this Knol I authored on the subject.

I HIGHLY RECOMMEND SUBSCRIBING TO THIS PLASMA COSMOLOGY REDDIT

http://www.reddit.com/r/plasmacosmology/

Libertarians should be particularly keen to take note of this cosmology given the massive waste of tax payer money on experiments that have continually proven to be worthless time and time again.  Plasma cosmology also offers alternative explanations for “global warming” based on solar activity.

Examples of mainstream experimental failure include:

Gravity Probe B fails to prove frame dragging

LIGO has never detected a gravitational wave

CDMS project has never detected any observational evidence of dark matter

Cepheid mass discrepancy problem

The WMAP Cold Spot

Deep Impact fails to prove dirty snowball model of comets

etc.. etc..

In much the same way Keynesian economics has subverted the science of economics, I believe Einsteinian relativity has subverted the science of cosmology.   It is time to apply the same logical rigor that libertarians use to analyse economics to the study of cosmology.   I can assure you that once you start digging into plasma cosmology, you will not look at space the same way ever again.  Plasma cosmology has overturned all of my previous beliefs in regards to cosmology and earth history.

Take some time, watch the video, read the articles, and decide for yourself what makes more sense – bending space or electrically conductive plasma.

Professor Donald Scott gives a lecture on plasma cosmology at the NASA Goddard Space Center:

 

  • Luc

    History; economics; cosmology; environmental; medicine and on and on, have been perverted or retarded by the monetaries, the more political and inapplicable the field is the worst it is.
    It’s impossible to trust academia at all once you see how horrible the practices are, it feels like finding cockroaches in your home and you can’t sleep.
    Because you know there’s more.

    What’s the best site to find skeptics of academia as a whole?

    • http://www.libertariannews.org/ Michael Suede

      This one.

      Unfortunately I’m the only person I know on the internet that has a solid grip on Austrian economic theory, plasma cosmology, alternative medicine and skeptical climate science.

      I’ve seen the Daily Bell  bring up the merits of plasma cosmology before, but they don’t have a grip on it like I do.

      • Luc

        It’s hard to believe your the only iconoclast writer in this part of the net, I must look more deeply into this.
        Perhaps i’ll assist you once I get a desktop.

    • AJ

      People are waking up, but in general you have to draw from eclectic sources: mises.org for politics and economics and history, PC and EU and Bill Gaede and Miles Mathis and Gabriel LaFreniere and of course here for physics (and math), jonbarron.org tempered by beyondveg for alternative health, anyone who’s not an idiot for meteorology, and for philosophy just stop thinking in words and you can figure it out yourself.

  • PKP

    Luc, Michael is certainly not the only iconoclast but he is the best one with a solid grip on Austrian economics, plasma cosmology and other important things.
    I first happened upon the Thunderbolts video linked above a few years ago on another site and my eyes were opened and my life has not been the same again. As an engineer, suddenly it all made sense. I also watched the other Thornhill+Talbott video http://vimeo.com/5424007
    I now question everything mainstream. Most of my friends do not want to hear it though, they just so want to believe in their notion of reality offered by the charlatan physicists. So beware, you may lose friends. I googled for material on Plasma Cosmology and Electric Universe and devoured all I could get. And that is how I found the FascistSoup. Michael had all the best stuff plus more. His personal videos on cosmology are very informative.
    While most plasma cosmologists concentrate more on cosmology, I wish there were more work on the sub-atomic level, to counter the standard model of the atom. How to do you make two particles attract if they are shooting smaller particles at each other? That seems counter-intuitive. Repulsion would work with particles, but not attraction.
    If more people would support PC and EU, we may unlock new energy sources and ways to harvest, produce and transmit energy.

    • http://www.libertariannews.org/ Michael Suede

      PKP, this is the best alternative atomic theory I’ve found.

      Brilliant and simple.  It just oozes reality.

      http://glafreniere.com/matter.htm

      I don’t see any conflict with plasma cosmology in his theory. 

      I’m convinced that he is on the right path, and that path just happens to coincide with a steady state electric universe.

  • PKP

    Luc, Michael is certainly not the only iconoclast but he is the best one with a solid grip on Austrian economics, plasma cosmology and other important things.
    I first happened upon the Thunderbolts video linked above a few years ago on another site and my eyes were opened and my life has not been the same again. As an engineer, suddenly it all made sense. I also watched the other Thornhill+Talbott video http://vimeo.com/5424007
    I now question everything mainstream. Most of my friends do not want to hear it though, they just so want to believe in their notion of reality offered by the charlatan physicists. So beware, you may lose friends. I googled for material on Plasma Cosmology and Electric Universe and devoured all I could get. And that is how I found the FascistSoup. Michael had all the best stuff plus more. His personal videos on cosmology are very informative.
    While most plasma cosmologists concentrate more on cosmology, I wish there were more work on the sub-atomic level, to counter the standard model of the atom. How to do you make two particles attract if they are shooting smaller particles at each other? That seems counter-intuitive. Repulsion would work with particles, but not attraction.
    If more people would support PC and EU, we may unlock new energy sources and ways to harvest, produce and transmit energy.

  • PKP

    Luc, Michael is certainly not the only iconoclast but he is the best one with a solid grip on Austrian economics, plasma cosmology and other important things.
    I first happened upon the Thunderbolts video linked above a few years ago on another site and my eyes were opened and my life has not been the same again. As an engineer, suddenly it all made sense. I also watched the other Thornhill+Talbott video http://vimeo.com/5424007
    I now question everything mainstream. Most of my friends do not want to hear it though, they just so want to believe in their notion of reality offered by the charlatan physicists. So beware, you may lose friends. I googled for material on Plasma Cosmology and Electric Universe and devoured all I could get. And that is how I found the FascistSoup. Michael had all the best stuff plus more. His personal videos on cosmology are very informative.
    While most plasma cosmologists concentrate more on cosmology, I wish there were more work on the sub-atomic level, to counter the standard model of the atom. How to do you make two particles attract if they are shooting smaller particles at each other? That seems counter-intuitive. Repulsion would work with particles, but not attraction.
    If more people would support PC and EU, we may unlock new energy sources and ways to harvest, produce and transmit energy.

  • orkneylad

    Electromagnetic discharge or lense artifact?

    Current explanations that these are ‘lense flares’ or ‘optical anomalies’ do not completely stack up for me yet.

    Here’s
    the weird thing, lense artifacts [flares] tend to dissapear sharply
    when the illuminating object goes out of shot. Yet we see the ‘anomaly’
    continue.

    The NASA Solar Terrestrial Relations Observatory (STEREO) Mission Heliospheric Imager
    Technical documentation:
    http://www.sstd.rl.ac.uk/stereo/Documents/spie_hi_paper.pdf

    A dense read, but no mention of ‘lense flares’ as an expected instrumental problem.

    Since
    the Stereo B telescope is configured to highlight CMEs from the Sun,
    that is, Coronal Mass Ejections -or ‘Electrically Charged Plasma’ if you
    prefer- surely this would also pick up other ‘charged plasma events’
    happening in the field of view?

    Wierdness.

  • Exuberant1

    Hey Michael,

    I have a way to test relativity….

    …If quantum communication or instantaneous communication is possible then it can be tested. But only if those things exist.

  • Katesisco

    If Sol’s system is 4 billion years old, I agree with science, how come we didn’t show up until 5 my ago? 
    Is it because of the continuing periodic magnetic field incursion that first compresses sol’s heliosphere planet by planet down to the sun itself? This DL front then lashes the planets with the energetic center, then passes exposing the planet to the back side of the DL, expansion and cosmic ray bombardment? 
    And the only reason we have 10,000 years of identifiable history is that the build-up after 10,000 wasn’t torn down at 5,000 because Earth didn’t pass into the back of the DL incursion as it stopped before doing so? 
    And this time the DL incursion will stop before Venus, leaving this planet with the possibility of bringing its stratospheric atmosphere down to the surface?

  • Jeff Yee

    Update to the post from Michael Suede. Unfortunately, Gabriel Lafreniere has passed away and his site is no longer accessible. Thanks to the people at Rhythmodynamics, his site lives on. The URL to see the page posted by Michael is now at:

    http://www.rhythmodynamics.com/Gabriel_LaFreniere/matter.htm

    And I’m attempting to keep his works alive in the Particles of the Universe, available on Amazon:

    http://www.amazon.com/The-Particles-Universe-ebook/dp/B007PM4ZZW

    • http://www.libertariannews.org/ Michael Suede

      That’s really sad to hear.  I loved his theories.

  • Louis Lalonde

    I am honestly astonished that libertarians actually heard of plasma cosmology. Ideologically I’m opposed to US libertarianism, which is just another right wing movement in the USA (libertarianism and socialism have totally different meanings outside the USA which has corrupted those terms). Plasma cosmology philosophically makes more sense than the BIg Bang theory which american libertarians should support since it supports religion and the bible. Maybe you haven’t though about all this. Atheists in general are on the side of plasma cosmology, religious zealots usually on the side of the Big Bang Theory. I think you should sit down and reflect on all this, plasma cosmology implies an infinite universe, infinite in time (no beginning no end, therefore no creation obviously) and infinite in space. Thumbs up on bringing readers’ attention to plasma cosmology. I’m impressed. :)
    Reading suggestion: The Big Bang Never Happened, by Eric Lerner (who is presently working on a fusion reactors based on plasma energy). It is also a movie in several parts on YouTube.

    • Anton Louis Feichtmeir

      Here’s one Atheist who is NOT on the side of plasma cosmology. Keep in mind that the Big Bang theory is quite different from the biblical creation myth.

      • http://www.libertariannews.org/ Michael Suede

        ” If libertarians had any brains whatsoever, they’d support the theory which is most solidly supported by scientific evidence.”

        I agree, everyone should support plasma cosmology because it is not propped up by religious dogma.

        Black holes, strange matter, dark matter, dark energy, bending space, dirty snowball comets, WIMPS, MACHOs, and multiple dimensions are religious dogma that need to be discarded in favor of real scientific fact that can be verified through experiment.

        The standard model rejects falsification.

        • moto perpetuo

          On the other hand, the two central assertions of plasma cosmology are entirely unsupported either by theory or observation.

          Plasma cosmology requires the Earth to be part of an enormous circuit. Although plasma cosmologists are perfectly happy to identify one side of the circuit, they are entirely unable to point out a manifestation of the other, or even to offer a hypothesis as to where it might be found. Without a return path for charge, it ain’t a circuit.

          There also remains the complete mystery of what the hell is providing this energy in the first place. Again, no observations, nor even a working hypothesis.

          Guys, this ain’t a theory. It’s got more holes in it than a Swiss cheese.

          • http://www.libertariannews.org/ Michael Suede

            “On the other hand, the two central assertions of plasma cosmology are entirely unsupported either by theory or observation.”

            Not true.

            PC theory is consistent with laboratory observation. It was created by a Nobel prizing winning plasma physicist.

            Just because plasma cosmologists can’t see where the “mountain stream” of energy originates from, that doesn’t mean the stream isn’t there. We can clearly see the stream, we just can’t see the source.

            Similarly, all of the parts of the stream haven’t yet been identified. It’s still not clear how the Sun is receiving electrons, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t happening. There are all sorts of things that could be obscuring detection of the electron flow, but that doesn’t mean the flow isn’t there.

            We can see solar wind accelerate away from the Sun, which is only possible because of an electric field. That’s the way we accelerate particles on Earth, and it’s the way nature accelerates them in space.

            Since plasma is not a perfect conductor, it must be maintained with a power input to maintain charge separation. Where there is plasma, there is a circuit. This is a known property of plasma that has been verified through laboratory experimentation. This is also something the standard theory denies as fact. The standard theory believes astrophysical plasma to be a perfect conductor, which flies in the face of laboratory experimentation.

          • moto perpetuo

            Man, if you’re relying on the Open Astronomy Journal to back up your case, you really are in dire straits. You don’t have to google hard to find why that’s the case.

            “PC theory is consistent with laboratory observation. It was created by a Nobel prizing winning plasma physicist.”

            Yes, almost fifty years ago. Guess what – our knowledge has moved on somewhat since then. Half the objections he had to the standard model are no longer valid, and many of his assertions have been comprehensively disproved.

            “Just because plasma cosmologists can’t see where the “mountain stream” of energy originates from, that doesn’t mean the stream isn’t there.”

            Cosmology 101: If a new model of the universe is to supplant an old one, it must adequately describe everything already described by the old one. PC falls at the first hurdle.

            “The standard theory believes astrophysical plasma to be a perfect conductor,”

            WRONG. Astrophysicists sometimes *assume* that for reasons of calculus, but that doesn’t mean they *believe* it to be the case. If you don’t understand the difference you have no business commenting on this stuff, because it shows you’re completely ignorant of how it works.

            “We can see solar wind accelerate away from the Sun, which is only possible because of an electric field.”

            WRONG. Magnetic fields would have the same effect, and probably do, although we don’t know this is the mechanism at play. And before you say that your theory explains it – fine, so does mine.

            “black-holes do not exist”

            An assertion contested by the vast majority of astrophysicists, and certainly all those I have ever met.

          • http://www.libertariannews.org/ Michael Suede

            “Cosmology 101: If a new model of the universe is to supplant an old one, it must adequately describe everything already described by the old one. PC falls at the first hurdle.”

            WRONG: this assertion is not part of the scientific method. New models do not need to be presented before old models can be rejected.

            “WRONG. Magnetic fields would have the same effect, and probably do, although we don’t know this is the mechanism at play. And before you say that your theory explains it – fine, so does mine.”

            I was unaware that magnetic fields could exist without moving electrons. Magnetic fields are the byproduct of an electric current.

            “An assertion contested by the vast majority of astrophysicists, and certainly all those I have ever met.”

            Did you listen to Crother’s lecture? Of course not. You don’t have the brains to listen to the lecture and determine who is making the better argument. You need others to make that decision for you.

          • moto perpetuo

            “New models do not need to be presented before old models can be rejected.”

            Last time I looked, this article was about a new model (plasma cosmology). A model which is riddled with internal consistencies, fails to adequately describe numerous features of the observable universe and posits entirely new phenomena without providing testable hypotheses or predictions. Not only is it not worthy of succeeding the standard model, it fails as a hypothesis. Don’t lecture me on the scientific method if you don’t know its dictates.

            “I was unaware that magnetic fields could exist without moving electrons.”

            That’s because you’re an incompetent dabbler who only thinks he knows what he’s talking about. Look up nuclear magnetic resonance, you might find it interesting. The Sun’s magnetic field is in fact generated by electric currents, but the fact that you use the phrases ‘magnetic field’ and ‘electric field’ as if the two were the same is yet another giveaway that your basic knowledge is woefully lacking. Again, do some reading.

            I’ve listened to Crothers’ lecture and read several of his papers. His entire schtick is based on a basic misconception of relativity. It fails at its initial premise, never mind the fact that it is easily rebutted by observation. You don’t have the math to understand where and why he’s wrong, unless you have spent four or five years studying this stuff, which I seriously doubt. He has zero support in mainstream science, and this is not an accident.

            “You don’t have the brains to listen to the lecture and determine who is making the better argument”

            This, sadly, is not a debate that the layman is equipped to judge. It’s a highly technical mathematical subject and making judgment on the basis of who sounds most convincing is a fool’s game. Go away, take a graduate class in relativity and then we can have a grown-up conversation about it. Till then, have fund writing blogs about economics, because that’s all you’re competent to do.

        • Anton Louis Feichtmeir

          >>Black holes, strange matter, dark matter, dark energy, bending space,
          dirty snowball comets, WIMPS, MACHOs, and multiple dimensions are
          religious dogma that need to be discarded in favor of real scientific
          fact that can be verified through experiment.<<

          REEDICULOUS NONSENSE, DEAR WATSON!

          Gravitational black holes(not to be confused with so-called mini black holes) cannot be created in the laboratory but they can and already have been be detected in out space. The closest confirmed black hole is Sagittarius A* in the center of our galaxy. Time to drop these claims that black holes do not exist. They do.

          The electromagnetic force falls off with distance by the inverse square law(at classical and astronomical scales). So once you get into the thousands and millions of lightyears from the source of an object with an intense magnetic field(as strong as a magnetar). To explain galaxy formation using electromagnetism requires filaments of electric charge extending througout the galaxy. Such filaments have never been found.

          The Gravitational force on the other hand, has unlimited range according to General Relativity. And its predictions are supported by observational evidence.

          • http://www.libertariannews.org/ Michael Suede

            You’re pretty much wrong on every point you just made.

            GR relies on gravity, which is an infinitely weak force. Galactic sized plasma filaments are a common observation in space, as are galactic sized magnetic fields.

            Gravity is not capable of accounting for the galactic sized filamentary objects in space. Neutral gases should disperse over the distances observed, yet we can clearly see plasma filaments that span the distance of galaxies all around us. Neutral gases should not create magnetic fields, yet they are observed in abundance.

            General relativity is incapable of accounting for objects like the Abell 3376 cluster, where there are no solutions to the “shock injection” problem of creating and maintaining the enormous x-ray halo.

            Here’s a long list of problems with the theory:

            http://www.libertariannews.org/2011/07/08/einstein-was-wrong-2/

          • Anton Louis Feichtmeir

            Gravity is not an “infinitely weak” force in GR. What GR posists is thatgravity is not an fundamental force, but an emergent property resulting from the curvature of space-time induced by massive bodies(equivalence principle).

            Furthermore, one of the most extreme predictions of GR has been shown by observational evidence to be true: The Black Hole.

            Here is a article from 2009 which illustrates the basic evidence for an event horizon in Sagittarius A*. And a more recent article describing observations of the emissions near the event horizon. There is now an international project called the Event Horizon Telescope to produce an actual image of it.

          • Anton Louis Feichtmeir

            With respect to the Abell 3376 cluster, This is a press release from the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics based on observational data from the Chandra X-Ray oribital observatory. No disrespect sir, but I did my homework and upon learning the name of the astrophysicist(Fabian Schmidt)mentioned in the NASA press release, I found this paper by him which explains how a modified Einstein-Hilbert action was used to construct a simulation of Abell 3376 collision without the need for “dark energy” that is consistent with both General Relativity and observational data.

          • moto perpetuo

            “dirty snowball comets… are religious dogma that need to be discarded in favor of real scientific fact that can be verified through experiment.”

            Striking that plasma cosmology cites only laboratory experiments in its favor, largely because the only ‘evidence’ it has gathered to date from the cosmos consists of trivial visual parallels with phenomena on the micro scale.

            Real science, on the other hand, tests its assertions. Thankfully part of this argument may be put to bed for ever next year when the Philae probe is due to land on a comet nucleus for the first time ever. Then we will have some solid data. Incidentally, how many cometary space probes have reported any evidence to support plasma cosmology hypotheses? Let me answer: NONE.

          • Anton Louis Feichtmeir

            That’s the thing about astrophysics/cosmology: It involves distances, masses, and energies that are far greater than what can be generated in a laboratory. Thus, it is a science based primarily on observations rather than experimentation. Black Hole denialism is all the rage these days……….Which is pretty ironic considering that one has been confirmed right in the heart of our galaxy. There was some debate in the 00s about whether or not Sagittarius A* was indeed a black hole, but now in the 2010s there is no scientific debate whatsoever.

          • Michael Suede

            LLLOOOOOLLLLLL

            Have you seen this? It’s a hour and a half of non-stop standard comet theory destruction.

            I’ll bet you a thousand dollars in bitcoins right now that Philae turns out to be a dry, dense, cratered piece of rock with either no water or very little water on it.

            No “water” jets will be identified. However, there will be huge OH blooms appearing where image sensors are whited out from electrical discharges.

            The lander will probably short-out from an electrical exchange with the comet though, so we might not get to see the surface from the lander at all. If the probe is made out of a conductive metal like copper, it will most likely explode as it approaches the comet.

            I’ll make a post on it. Then I’ll rub it in your face when all of my predictions come true.

          • moto perpetuo

            Once again, comparing your predictions with actual known science reveals either willful blindness or sheer ignorance.

            Both water jets and nuclear ice deposits have already been observed and documented. Giotto found that 80% of the material leaving the nucleus of Halley was water vapor. More recently, Deep Impact was able to map ice deposits on not one but two comets. The first was Tempel 1, the second was Hartley 2. See Sunshine et al, The Distribution of Water Ice on Comet 103P/Hartley 2, Asteroids, Comets, Meteors, 2012.

            Also Combi et al, Water Production by Comet 103p/Hartley 2 Observed with the Swan
            Instrument on the

            Soho Spacecraft, The Astrophysical Journal Letters,

            Despite numerous flybys by probes stuffed with sophisticated electronics, including one that passed just 80 km from a comet’s nucleus, electrical phenomena of any significance have never been detected. Now why might that be?

          • Michael Suede

            Deep Impact Was a Dust-up, Not a Gusher
            http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/news/2005-23

            Giotto did not see any water at all. It only detected OH emissions and negative H emissions, which is impossible according to photodissociation theory. Positive H ion production did not meet with observed theory.

            Here’s a paper on the Giotto findings:

            http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1987ESASP.278..447K

          • moto perpetuo

            “Deep Impact Was a Dust-up, Not a Gusher”

            The document you link to is a press release, not a scientific paper, and it’s reporting preliminary results. And all it reports is that the *preliminary* results appeared to indicate less water than predicted; it nowhere claims that there was no water detected. In fact, the same team, once all the data had been processed, reported their results in a journal article in 2006, laying out conclusive proof of water ice on the surface of the comet. See Sunshine et al, Exposed Water Ice Deposits on the Surface of Comet 9P/Tempel 1, Science, 2006.

            “The observations you cite never see water directly, they see H and OH emissions, and then infer that water must be the cause of those emissions.”

            Complete garbage. At every stage you show how little you know. All the papers I have cited above rely on IR spectroscopy, which can detect not only the water molecule but which phase it is in. The emission spectrum of water ice is highly idiosyncratic because of hydrogen bonding. The detection method in fact DEPENDS on the molecule not being dissociated.

            You show a remarkable ability to be proved wrong repeatedly without ever acknowledging it. Everything I’ve corrected you on here would be basic knowledge to an astrophysics major.

          • Michael Suede

            You mean the report that starts out with, “The total area of exposed water ice is substantially less than that required to support the observed ambient outgassing from the comet, which likely has additional source regions below the surface.”

            Hardly any ice was found on the surface. Only .5% of the surface was found to be frosted with a coating of ice. So the standard model is now telling us that comets are actually all huge hollow boulders, and all the ice is hiding beneath the surface. Of course, the surface of all comets are pitch black – darker than road tar, which is unexplained.

            So huge hollow pitch black ice filled boulders that somehow manage to pressurize water vapor out of “nozzles.”

            Are you fucking retarded? You expect me to believe that bullshit?

            LOOK AT THE PICTURES OF COMETS – JUST FUCKING LOOK AT THEM! DO THEY LOOK LIKE MELTING SNOWBALLS? ARE YOU FUCKING BLIND? I’M STARING AT A COMET NOW – IT’S A GIGANTIC FUCKING SOLID PIECE OF ROCK! IT’S A ROCK! IT’S A ROCK! IT’S A ROCK! IT’S A ROCK! IT’S A ROCK! IT’S A ROCK! IT’S A ROCK! IT’S A ROCK! IT’S A ROCK! IT’S A ROCK! IT’S A ROCK! IT’S A ROCK! IT’S A ROCK! IT’S A ROCK!

          • moto perpetuo

            Proponents of the Electric Universe often complain that they can’t get mainstream scientists to talk seriously with them about their ideas. You’ve just provided a useful guide to why most of us don’t bother.

            First of all, the ignorance of basic facts:

            “So the standard model is now telling us that comets are actually all huge hollow boulders, and all the ice is hiding beneath the surface.”

            Wrong. The standard model has always held that comets are agglomerations of dust and ice. That has not changed. The only thing that has changed is that the first observations of actual comets (which, let it be remembered, only became possible in 1986) showed that there is more dust, and less ice, in that mixture than was previously believed. This is why some astronomers now prefer the description ‘snowy dirtball’ to ‘dirty snowball’. No serious scientist has suggested they are hollow boulders, a model which you simply made up.

            “On comet Borrelly, they found no ice at all.”

            Comet Borrelly has a surface temperature of ~25C. Finding surface ice on it would be a tad surprising, no? There is quite detailed work on the internal composition of Borrelly. Guess what – it contains quite a lot of water.

            Second, the cherry-picking, the modus operandi of all pseudoscientists:

            “And your statement about directly observing water is wrong, they did not look for water directly in all the reports you cite.”

            So you pick the one paper that relies on another method, handily ignoring all the others I cited which don’t. There is a massive literature on this subject, which you either don’t know or would prefer to ignore.

            Third, the classic plasma cosmologist idiocy, the idea that because an object *looks* like something else, it must *be* something else:

            “DO THEY LOOK LIKE MELTING SNOWBALLS?”

            No, because they’re not melting snowballs. Does the fact that they look like hunks of rock mean that they’re hunks of rock? Not necessarily. Until the 20th century, did gas giants look like giant globes of gas? No, they looked like hunks of rock. In both cases we now have methods considerably subtler than visual examination, which allow us to work out what they actually are. But plasma cosmologists generally prefer to rely on childish visual parallels rather than actual data gathered in situ.

            But the final reason that people like you aren’t worth arguing with – beyond the ignorance of basic scientific principles and literature, beyond the fact that you think that reading a few pop-science articles qualifies you to engage with people who have spent years in grad school studying math and chemistry and astrophysics in order to be competent at gathering their own data and assessing other people’s – is that when you’re obliterated in an argument and shown up for the charlatan you are, all you can do is launch into an obscene rant. When pseudoscientists are cornered, all they have is profane language and block capitals.

          • Michael Suede

            What drives me so nuts about people like you is that you know full well you are full of shit. You aren’t stupid. You know you are lying out your ass. It’s so disgusting to me. You seriously disgust me.

            I can forgive the vast majority of people for their ignorance and stupidity when it comes to cosmology, but people like you just blow me away. You’re just like Paul Krugman or Ben Bernanke. You’re an academic quack! Paul Krugman is trying to convince me that printing money can lead to prosperity and you’re trying to convince me that comets are really x-ray creating hollow boulders, covered in pitch black soot, filled with ice.

            I’ve always wondered how you can look yourself in the mirror every day when you wake up. How do you do it? Do you actually manage to convince yourself that you’re not full of crap? Do you actually believe the bullshit you spew? I mean how does your conscience manage all of the lies?

          • Anton Louis Feichtmeir

            You just keep projecting now, dontcha?

            I already debunked your poppycock about Black Holes and the Abell 3376 galactic cluster. You desperately want to be right, even though you’re wrong and you know it. It’s awfully weird and quite pathetic that Cosmological pseudoscience would show up on a libertarian website.

            I am not the type to dismiss mainstream scientific theories because they challenge the dominant paradigm, but THIS hypothesis not only is unsupported by observational evidence, it is also quite dated.

            Now you’re resorting to insults and ad hominems…..That speaks volumes.

          • http://www.libertariannews.org/ Michael Suede

            You are one of the ignorant and stupid people, so I can forgive you. It’s not your fault you are who you are. You were probably born that way.

          • Anton Louis Feichtmeir

            LOLOLOL indeed……at you!

            A youtube video don’t mean squat. Show me a scientific article that backs up your claims and then we’ll talk.

          • Michael Suede
  • Pingback: The gravity of the Electric Universe Theory | 99.99% is Plasma | | Carolkeiter's Blog

  • Pingback: Plasma Physics’ Answers to the New Cosmological Questions by Dr. Donald E. Scott 6 of 7 | SacredGeometry Symbols.info