Notices
Results 1 to 32 of 32

Thread: Plasma (where are we at?)

  1. #1 Plasma (where are we at?) 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    34
    Plasma is a very mysterious thing to me. I have tried to do my best to investigate and learn on a very embryonic level, enough so that I can ask a few questions.

    1) Can you tell me where we are at with respect to experimental technological applications that involve plasma?

    2) Is plasma being used in relation to aeronautic technology?

    3) Has plasma ever been classified? What is it then? Gas, Energy, Living, etc.

    4) According to empirical review, is it now accepted that plasma played a larger role in the development of life on Earth, than previously held?


    I want you all to know that I almost posted this in "pseudoscience" because of my ignorance in these matters. Is our present understanding of plasma as scientifically "sound" as the questions I have raised above, elude to?

    Thank You For Your Time and Consideration,
    N

    [edit MR]
    just testing whether i really can edit outside what used to "my" part of the forum
    not sure if i really want to
    [/edit]


    Last edited by marnixR; July 19th, 2011 at 07:27 AM. Reason: testing edit options
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    34
    OK, I got a little further with this today, however there are still some (several trillion) real uncertainties. Would LOVE to hear from knowledgeable people involved in plasma research.

    1) Plasma is still a BIG new potential in experimental aircraft design. I have come to know of two primary applications.

    a) the reduction of the plane's radar cross section (stealth technologies)

    b) By enveloping the plane (or whatever aerial vehicle) in plasma, or by applying plasma to specific areas of the vehicle, it immensely cuts down on drag. In Russia back in the 80s, pre collapse, scientists claimed an almost 30% reduction in drag when conducting the initial experiments with plasma.

    This is a very interesting and quick story: http://www.spacedaily.com/news/future-00o.html

    It seems as though Plasma may also have a deep connection to the formation of life on the planet as well, although, at this time, I am certainly not prepared to report on as much. It seems as though it's very cellular appearing stuff sharing most of the cellular characteristics normally associated with what science refers to as "life"? (micro organisms)

    It all just furthers my curiosity.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3 Re: Plasma (where are we at?) 
    Moderator Moderator Janus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,225
    Quote Originally Posted by Nulledge
    Plasma is a very mysterious thing to me. I have tried to do my best to investigate and learn on a very embryonic level, enough so that I can ask a few questions.

    1) Can you tell me where we are at with respect to experimental technological applications that involve plasma?
    One of the common places that you'll find plasma in use in in flourescent lights[/quote]

    2) Is plasma being used in relation to aeronautic technology?
    [/quote] Ion engines use plasma

    3) Has plasma ever been classified? What is it then? Gas, Energy, Living, etc.
    While sometimes called the forth state of matter, plasma basically is a gas which has been ionized (the electrons have been stripped front he atoms leaving them with a net charge

    4) According to empirical review, is it now accepted that plasma played a larger role in the development of life on Earth, than previously held?
    You seem to be confusing "plasma" and "plasm"(such as in "nucleoplasm", which is liquid that surrounds the chromosomes and nucleoli in cells). Despite the similarity in spelling, these are completely unrelated to each other.


    I want you all to know that I almost posted this in "pseudoscience" because of my ignorance in these matters. Is our present understanding of plasma as scientifically "sound" as the questions I have raised above, elude to?

    Thank You For Your Time and Consideration,
    N
    Last edited by Harold14370; July 22nd, 2011 at 04:13 AM. Reason: fix quotes
    "Men are apt to mistake the strength of their feelings for the strength of their argument.
    The heated mind resents the chill touch & relentless scrutiny of logic"-W.E. Gladstone


    Edit/Delete Message
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4 Re: Plasma (where are we at?) 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    34
    Quote Originally Posted by Janus
    You seem to be confusing "plasma" and "plasm"(such as in "nucleoplasm", which is liquid that surrounds the chromosomes and nucleoli in cells). Despite the similarity in spelling, these are completely unrelated to each other.
    .


    No, not at all. I apologize if I was unclear.

    Plasma cosmologist, Donald Scott, notes that "...a [plasma] double layer can act much like a membrane that divides a biological cell". A model of plasma double layers (a structure commonly found in complex plasmas) has been used to investigate ion transport across biological cell membranes by researchers (See American Journal of Physics, May 2000, Volume 68, Issue 5, pp. 450-455). Researchers noted that "Concepts like charge neutrality, Debye length, and double layer [used in plasma physics] are very useful to explain the electrical properties of a cellular membrane". Plasma physicist Hannes Alfv�n also noted the association of double layers with cellular structure, as had Irving Langmuir before him, who coined the term "plasma" after its resemblance to living blood cells.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5 Re: Plasma (where are we at?) 
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by Nulledge
    Quote Originally Posted by Janus
    You seem to be confusing "plasma" and "plasm"(such as in "nucleoplasm", which is liquid that surrounds the chromosomes and nucleoli in cells). Despite the similarity in spelling, these are completely unrelated to each other.
    .


    No, not at all. I apologize if I was unclear.

    Plasma cosmologist, Donald Scott, notes that "...a [plasma] double layer can act much like a membrane that divides a biological cell". A model of plasma double layers (a structure commonly found in complex plasmas) has been used to investigate ion transport across biological cell membranes by researchers (See American Journal of Physics, May 2000, Volume 68, Issue 5, pp. 450-455). Researchers noted that "Concepts like charge neutrality, Debye length, and double layer [used in plasma physics] are very useful to explain the electrical properties of a cellular membrane". Plasma physicist Hannes Alfv�n also noted the association of double layers with cellular structure, as had Irving Langmuir before him, who coined the term "plasma" after its resemblance to living blood cells.
    Donald Scott is a well-known quack and plasma cosmology is pure pseudoscience, along with the rest of the nonsense advocated by the "electric universe" bunch of wackos.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6 Re: Plasma (where are we at?) 
    Forum Freshman iantresman's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    55
    Quote Originally Posted by Nulledge
    3) Has plasma ever been classified? What is it then? Gas, Energy, Living, etc.N
    Plasmas (or ionized gases) have been studied and classified since their discover in 1879 by Sir William Crookes, who called it "radiant matter".

    A plasma is typically a gaseous substance, sometimes called the fourth state of matter (the other three being solid, liquids and gases). Quite simply, as you heat (add energy) to a gas, the atoms eventually "ionize" into ions.

    For example, if you continue to heat hydrogen gas molecules, they eventually ionize into positively charged hydrogen ions (protons) and negatively charged electrons.

    The reason the hydrogen plasma is considered another state of matter, is because its properties may be quite different to a gas, most importantly, it responds strongly to electromagnetic fields (ie. magnetic and electric fields). This is exemplified by the "gas" in a "plasma ball" which produces lightning-like sparks or filaments when an electric current is passed through it.

    Plasmas may also produce a wide spectrum of electromagnetic radiation, from light to radio waves to x-rays and gamma rays. Just about everything we see in the universe is produced by a plasma (eg. the light from all the stars, nebulae, etc).
    Ian Tresman
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7 Re: Plasma (where are we at?) 
    Forum Freshman iantresman's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    55
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    .. plasma cosmology is pure pseudoscience ..
    As far as I know, Plasma Cosmology is fully peer-reviewed, eg.
    • IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science, Special Issue on Plasma Cosmology, Vol 18 No 1 (Feb 1990), Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Plasma Cosmology, La Jolla, California, USA, 20-22 February 1989. (Contents)
    • Alfven, Hannes O. G, "Cosmology in the plasma universe - an introductory exposition" (1990) IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science (ISSN 0093-3813), vol. 18, Feb. 1990, p. 5-10.

    As you know, Hannes Alfvén earned the Nobel Prize in physics for his work on MHD, and was considered by some to be the father of space plasma physics (ref), so I would be quite surprised if his research deviated from science.
    Ian Tresman
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8 Re: Plasma (where are we at?) 
    Forum Freshman iantresman's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    55
    Quote Originally Posted by Janus
    You seem to be confusing "plasma" and "plasm"(such as in "nucleoplasm", which is liquid that surrounds the chromosomes and nucleoli in cells). Despite the similarity in spelling, these are completely unrelated to each other.
    Correct, plasma (ionized gas) is indeed completely different from blood plasma, but I would argue that they are not completely unrelated. Physicist Lewi Tonks recounts that he

    ".. was working with [Irving] Langmuir at the time that he appropriated "plasma" for gaseous electronics and was the only scientist present at the event [.. one day ..]"

    "Langmuir breezed in and announced, "I know what we'll [sic] call it! We'll call it the 'plasma.' " The image of blood plasma immediately came to mind; I think Langmuir even mentioned blood. In the light of the contemporary state of our knowledge, the choice seemed very apt." -- Lewi Tonks, "The Birth of “Plasma”, American Journal of Physics -- September 1967 -- Volume 35, Issue 9, pp. 857.
    In their peer-reviewed article in the American Journal of Physics, Mituo Uehara et al mentioned that:

    "that plasma physics can be useful in the investigation of the physical properties of living cells. Concepts like charge neutrality, Debye length, and double layer are very useful to explain the electrical properties of a cellular membrane." -- Mituo Uehara et al, "Physics and Biology: Bio-plasma physics", American Journal of Physics -- May 2000 -- Volume 68, Issue 5, pp. 450 (full text, PDF)
    Ian Tresman
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    34
    Please DrRocket, you may be right, 1000% right, I do not know. I am at this time, other than surface level stories, (documented experiments & applications that I do not in any way understand or comprehend in process, but nonetheless can visualize as they are described in text as the experiments revealed themselves) am sincerely at an unarguably embryonic stage of learning with about as much working knowledge of "Plasma" as is contained in the GREAT initial post by iantresman. (honestly) And I only have this much of an understanding because I committed just days ago to truly, and indeed humbly, learning about plasma.

    My real area of interest is in fact advanced research application. However, I feel I owe it to myself to learn the basics before seeking out the ignorantly drooled upon fruits of others labor via my imagination.

    Ian, if I may in fact address you as Ian? I applaud your exceptional levelheadedness, and straightforward response. Knowledge is precious, and with it comes the gentle, yet thoroughly effective erasure of ignorance. This being via the progressive nature of scientific edification and revision. I already owe you.

    iantresman, I do not wish to seem too presumptuous whatsoever, but do you yourself have a specific area of plasma research that most intrigues you? If so, what please?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by iantresman View Post
    As far as I know, Plasma Cosmology is fully peer-reviewed, eg.
    • IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science, Special Issue on Plasma Cosmology, Vol 18 No 1 (Feb 1990), Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Plasma Cosmology, La Jolla, California, USA, 20-22 February 1989. (Contents)
    • Alfven, Hannes O. G, "Cosmology in the plasma universe - an introductory exposition" (1990) IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science (ISSN 0093-3813), vol. 18, Feb. 1990, p. 5-10.

    As you know, Hannes Alfvén earned the Nobel Prize in physics for his work on MHD, and was considered by some to be the father of space plasma physics (ref), so I would be quite surprised if his research deviated from science.

    Plasma cosmology is not found in any serious peer-reviewed journal. The IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science don't count. I Ha ve been an IEEE member for over 40 years and the hijack of that journal by a bunch of wackos is embarrassing. The IEEE is an engineering society, not a scientific society and cosmology is well outside the purview of its members.

    Alfven did terrific work in fundamental plasma physics, particularly MHD and "Alfven waves". His book Cosmical Electrodynamics is an excellent reference on the subject. His later works, such as Cosmic Plasma and Worlds, Anti-Worlds are pseudoscience. His workd on "plasma cosmology" has been evaluated and dismissed.

    The "Electric Universe" is pure garbage.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by Nulledge View Post
    Please DrRocket, you may be right, 1000% right, I do not know. I am at this time, other than surface level stories, (documented experiments & applications that I do not in any way understand or comprehend in process, but nonetheless can visualize as they are described in text as the experiments revealed themselves) am sincerely at an unarguably embryonic stage of learning with about as much working knowledge of "Plasma" as is contained in the GREAT initial post by iantresman. (honestly) And I only have this much of an understanding because I committed just days ago to truly, and indeed humbly, learning about plasma.

    My real area of interest is in fact advanced research application. However, I feel I owe it to myself to learn the basics before seeking out the ignorantly drooled upon fruits of others labor via my imagination.

    Ian, if I may in fact address you as Ian? I applaud your exceptional levelheadedness, and straightforward response. Knowledge is precious, and with it comes the gentle, yet thoroughly effective erasure of ignorance. This being via the progressive nature of scientific edification and revision. I already owe you.

    iantresman, I do not wish to seem too presumptuous whatsoever, but do you yourself have a specific area of plasma research that most intrigues you? If so, what please?
    Plasma physics is interesting. Plasma cosmology is rubbish and largely unrelated.

    If you want to learn about plasma physics read books things like Chandrasekhar's book on the subject, the chapter on plasmas in the second edition of J.D. Jackson's Classical Electrodynamics, Landau and Lifshitz's Course in Theoretical Physics volume on The Classical Theory of Fields, or books on stellar astrophysics.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Freshman iantresman's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    55
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket View Post
    Plasma cosmology is not found in any serious peer-reviewed journal.
    I found an entire issue of Astrophysics and Space Science, Volume 227 (1995) on the Proceedings of International Workshop on Plasma Astrophysics and Cosmology, that includes articles on Plasma Cosmology, that is still available from Springer. I didn't realize that Astrophysics and Space Science and Springer, were not considered serious.


    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket View Post
    The IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science don't count. I Have been an IEEE member for over 40 years and the hijack of that journal by a bunch of wackos is embarrassing. The IEEE is an engineering society, not a scientific society and cosmology is well outside the purview of its members.
    A plasma journal reviewing articles on plasma science doesn't count? Hmmm. Personally, I would consider name calling to be embarrassing. Actually, the IEEE is more than just an engineering society, and "... is designed to serve professionals involved in all aspects of the electrical, electronic and computing fields and related areas of science and technology" (ref).


    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket View Post
    Alfven did terrific work in fundamental plasma physics, particularly MHD and "Alfven waves". His book Cosmical Electrodynamics is an excellent reference on the subject. His later works, such as Cosmic Plasma and Worlds, Anti-Worlds are pseudoscience. His work on "plasma cosmology" has been evaluated and dismissed.
    Looks like Springer are still selling "Cosmic Plasma", surprising that they would sell a book that is potentially damaging. The only book review I could find does not seem to share your view.

    I'd be very interested in a couple of peer-reviewed articles that evaluate and dismiss plasma cosmology.
    Ian Tresman
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Comet Dust Collector Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    2,848
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket View Post
    I Ha ve been an IEEE member for over 40 years and the hijack of that journal by a bunch of wackos is embarrassing. The IEEE is an engineering society, not a scientific society and cosmology is well outside the purview of its members.
    Amen to that, Dr R!!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by iantresman View Post

    Looks like Springer are still selling "Cosmic Plasma", surprising that they would sell a book that is potentially damaging. The only book review I could find does not seem to share your view.

    I'd be very interested in a couple of peer-reviewed articles that evaluate and dismiss plasma cosmology.
    Cosmic Plasma is a D Redel/Kluwer book. It is junk.

    You can find an evaluation of "plasma cosmology" and reasons why it has been dismissed in Principles of Physical Cosmology by P.J.E. Peebles, a standard mainstream text.

    Your simultaneous request for mainstream literature references while embracing such rot as "plasma cosmology' is rather transparent.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Freshman iantresman's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    55
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket View Post
    Cosmic Plasma is a D Redel/Kluwer book. It is junk.
    You can find an evaluation of "plasma cosmology" and reasons why it has been dismissed in Principles of Physical Cosmology by P.J.E. Peebles, a standard mainstream text.
    Your simultaneous request for mainstream literature references while embracing such rot as "plasma cosmology' is rather transparent.
    Cosmic Plasma was indeed originally published by D. Reidel, who subsequently merged with Kluwer, was then bought out by Cinven and Candover, and then merged with Springer. Funny that they are all happy to publish/sell it.

    Peebles seems to be criticizing Klein-Alfvén cosmology, based on theories by Oskar Klein (1894-1977). Peebles's criticism appears to be more opinionated rather than scientific, citing Alfvén's book aimed a general audience.

    I'll assume that there are no scientific peer-reviewed criticisms of any of the peer-reviewed articles on Plasma Cosmology, but am happy to be corrected.
    Ian Tresman
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket View Post
    Plasma physics is interesting. Plasma cosmology is rubbish...
    This is a bizarre reply from someone who has posted 5,476 times on a SCIENCE forum. Do you claim to know the subject of your response?
    Just curious and not desiring to engage in a pretense of scientific discussion here.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by David Talbott View Post
    This is a bizarre reply from someone who has posted 5,476 times on a SCIENCE forum. Do you claim to know the subject of your response?
    Just curious and not desiring to engage in a pretense of scientific discussion here.
    Absolutely.

    There is nothing whatever bizarre about my response, if you know the subject matter.

    Plasma cosmology and its cousin "The Electric Universe" are pure pseudoscience.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Freshman iantresman's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    55
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket View Post
    Plasma cosmology [..] pure pseudoscience.
    I've provided several peer-reviewed citations to papers on Plasma Cosmology, which is an integral part of the scientific process. That consequently seems to contradict your statement. That is not to imply that Plasma Cosmology is correct.

    On the other hand, the word "pseudoscience" is pejorative, and has no basis in science. It does seem odd to use pseudoscience to try and dismiss theories found in scientific peer-reviewed journals, when science would seem to be the preferred standard.
    Ian Tresman
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by iantresman View Post
    I've provided several peer-reviewed citations to papers on Plasma Cosmology, which is an integral part of the scientific process. That consequently seems to contradict your statement. That is not to imply that Plasma Cosmology is correct.

    On the other hand, the word "pseudoscience" is pejorative, and has no basis in science. It does seem odd to use pseudoscience to try and dismiss theories found in scientific peer-reviewed journals, when science would seem to be the preferred standard.
    utter nonsense
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Freshman iantresman's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    55
    In the section you reference on Wikipedia "Comparison to mainstream cosmology", not one of the references in the entire section mentions Plasma Cosmology, ie. there is no comparative criticism. Instead, the section merely restates the position of Standard Cosmology. To suggest that a theory is wrong just because you have your own theory, is not science.

    Rob Knop's article is also just rhetoric, and he does not appear to understand plasma cosmology. His first assertion, that "The basic idea of plasma cosmology is that electromagnetic forces in the bulk motions of astronomical objects are far more important than mainstream astronomy admits" is incorrect. As Hannes Alfvén has stated, electromagnetic forces are only significant in the bulk motion of the ions in plasmas (and also charged dust and grains in complex dusty particles).

    Again, I am not suggesting that Plasma Cosmology is right, only that the criticisms are either non-existent in peer-reviewed journals, or just plain wrong.
    Ian Tresman
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Your Mama! GiantEvil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, Wa
    Posts
    2,299
    The Wiki article on plasma cosmology comes right out of the gate with "is a nonstandard cosmology" in the first sentence.
    As such it would seem this thread belongs at most in "New hypothesis" if not "Pseudo".
    I was some of the mud that got to sit up and look around.
    Lucky me. Lucky mud.
    -Kurt Vonnegut Jr.-
    Cat's Cradle.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by GiantEvil View Post
    The Wiki article on plasma cosmology comes right out of the gate with "is a nonstandard cosmology" in the first sentence.
    As such it would seem this thread belongs at most in "New hypothesis" if not "Pseudo".
    I have run into this nut before. Logic and vreal science are not going to make an impresseion. The EU crowd is monolithic, have their own agenda, and disregard basic science.

    The Donald Scott reference was a dead giveaway. Another would be Anthony Peratt.

    Ian Tresman's Home Page

    Plasma-Universe.com - (The Plasma Universe Wikipedia-like Encyclopedia)

    Thunderbolts home

    Electric Universe theory

    The reason that you don't see this garbage in mainstream journals is that it has long been debunked and the journals don't waste valuable space on the lunatic fringe. It never gets beyond the editors desk and trash can.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Your Mama! GiantEvil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, Wa
    Posts
    2,299
    I'm assuming Doc, that you wont be offended if I fail to click any of the above links you have provided. I see it as akin to meandering about on the mudflats of the Cook inlet.
    I was some of the mud that got to sit up and look around.
    Lucky me. Lucky mud.
    -Kurt Vonnegut Jr.-
    Cat's Cradle.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Freshman iantresman's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    55
    [QUOTE=DrRocket;275104]
    Quote Originally Posted by GiantEvil View Post
    I have run into this nut before. Logic and vreal science are not going to make an impresseion.

    The reason that you don't see this garbage in mainstream journals is that it has long been debunked and the journals don't waste valuable space on the lunatic fringe. It never gets beyond the editors desk and trash can.
    I have almost begged you for some logic and real science. Name calling is neither. Nor is claiming that there is nothing in mainstream journals, when I have already provided citations to several papers, and can provide more.
    Ian Tresman
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Freshman iantresman's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    55
    Sorry, I messed up some of the embedded quotes in my last post, but I think everyone can see what is attributed to whom.

    I have also posted some more criticisms of DrRocket's comments here.
    Ian Tresman
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Your Mama! GiantEvil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, Wa
    Posts
    2,299
    Okay, so I went and clicked some of the link's. I think it was very masochistic of myself to do so.
    I tried a cursory search at arXive, on plasma cosmology, and electric universe. I got over 800 and 1000 hit's respectively.
    Really, someone need's to provide some material on the subject being considered. The burden of proof resting on the individual who brought up the subject, Mr. Tresman.
    It is up to you to provide some specific assertion of the matter under consideration, then a proper conversation can ensue.
    I was some of the mud that got to sit up and look around.
    Lucky me. Lucky mud.
    -Kurt Vonnegut Jr.-
    Cat's Cradle.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Freshman iantresman's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    55
    Quote Originally Posted by GiantEvil View Post
    Okay, so I went and clicked some of the link's. I think it was very masochistic of myself to do so.
    I tried a cursory search at arXive, on plasma cosmology, and electric universe. I got over 800 and 1000 hit's respectively.
    Really, someone need's to provide some material on the subject being considered. The burden of proof resting on the individual who brought up the subject, Mr. Tresman.
    It is up to you to provide some specific assertion of the matter under consideration, then a proper conversation can ensue.
    The original poster merely wanted information on the application of plasmas to the aeronautical industry. DrRocket subsequently countered that Plasma Cosmology was pseudoscience, which I countered with some peer review articles.

    The other criticisms are too vague to reply to, hence my request for details. I have not made any claims regarding Plasma Cosmology, and it is probably not appropriate to, in a thread on aeronautical plasmas.
    Ian Tresman
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Your Mama! GiantEvil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, Wa
    Posts
    2,299
    Well then, here is an opportunity for you.
    I am offering you, Ian Tresman, the opportunity to present an idea of plasma cosmology that is in contradiction to standard cosmology.
    We will then debate that idea using science.
    We might get kicked down to pseudo, but that's no skin off my nose.
    Relativity? Cosmology? I'm swimming in deep water here, I have no advantages, honest.
    C'mon, I dare you!
    I was some of the mud that got to sit up and look around.
    Lucky me. Lucky mud.
    -Kurt Vonnegut Jr.-
    Cat's Cradle.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Freshman iantresman's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    55
    Quote Originally Posted by GiantEvil View Post
    Well then, here is an opportunity for you.
    I am offering you, Ian Tresman, the opportunity to present an idea of plasma cosmology that is in contradiction to standard cosmology.
    We will then debate that idea using science.
    We might get kicked down to pseudo, but that's no skin off my nose.
    Relativity? Cosmology? I'm swimming in deep water here, I have no advantages, honest.
    C'mon, I dare you!
    I'm happy to discuss Plasma Cosmology, but I'm not here to promote or defend it. I think it would make sense to start a new thread elsewhere, so I'll do that in due course (I have a day's work ahead of me, so might be this evening, or tomorrow, UK time), and then add a link to it from this thread.
    Ian Tresman
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Freshman iantresman's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    55
    I've decided not to go ahead with a discussion. Other than new work keeping me busy, I don't want to be goaded into something I may not be able to devote sufficient time to. Perhaps some other time.
    Ian Tresman
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Your Mama! GiantEvil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, Wa
    Posts
    2,299
    Quote Originally Posted by iantresman View Post
    I've decided not to go ahead with a discussion. Other than new work keeping me busy, I don't want to be goaded into something I may not be able to devote sufficient time to. Perhaps some other time.
    Unsurprising.
    I was some of the mud that got to sit up and look around.
    Lucky me. Lucky mud.
    -Kurt Vonnegut Jr.-
    Cat's Cradle.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •