Where do we stand? We stand at a time in scientific history that will be embarrassing to look back on from the vantage point of the next century. An entire subgroup of science consisting of a majority of astrophysicists and cosmologists is now – and has been – smugly ignoring the fruits of 150 or so years of electrical science. This subgroup feels perfectly confident in postulating the existence of processes and entities that cannot be verified experimentally in earthbound labs. “But that doesn’t mean those processes can’t happen in space,” they say. When there are perfectly valid electrical explanations for certain phenomena, it is irresponsible to ignore those explanations and invent ‘new science’ to avoid using them. People will ask, years from now, “How could they have ignored electricity in space when it was staring them in the face?”
Classic astronomy (and its offshoots: helioseismology, astrophysics, cosmology, etc.) have never made any real predictions that turned out to be true – although they are past-masters at inventing ‘dynamos’ and invisible entities to explain things retroactively. After-the-fact explanations are easy, especially if you can get away with saying “The hidden ‘dynamo’ did it.” Before they were forced into it, classical astronomers were wrong about how the auroras are powered, about the temperature of Venus, about the rocky nature of comets, about x-rays coming from comets and other objects, about the existence of natural radio emissions from the planets. And I claim they are wrong about many things they are now saying about the Sun.
Of course the Electric Sun model is speculative. But these speculations are reasonable extrapolations of the solid, experimentally verified properties of plasma. We are not positive that everything included in the ES hypothesis is 100% correct. We do not claim omnipotence or perfection for our early models.
The ‘standard’ astrophysical models are far more speculative. They are built up of speculation cantilevered onto speculation that is ever farther removed from any empirical basis. And a tremendous amount of doubt is piling up about them. They do not explain (without ad hoc and a posteriori adjustments) many of the observations that are being made – as the Electric Sun model does. (The fusion model doesn’t even explain why the solar corona exists in the first place, let alone its three million Kelvin temperature inversion.) Each time new data comes in from space probes, astronomers typically announce their surprise and rush ‘back to the drawing board’. They then busy themselves modifying (adding complexity to) their models – reminiscent of Ptolemaic epicycles – and emerge confidently claiming they knew this all along. In the one case where they deigned to make reference to anything electrical (the release of magnetic energy) they got it wrong and had to ‘discover’ new properties of magnetic fields that do not exist.
Call it what you will, Plasma Cosmology, the Electric Universe or the Electric Sky – the thrust of what was started by Kristian Birkeland (when he discovered the true electrical nature of the auroras), Hannes Alfvén, and Irving Langmuir (each of whom were awarded Nobel Prizes for their work) continues. And it will take more than the confrontational, parochial, pompous smoke screens of pseudoskeptics such as Tim Thompson to stop it.
Donald E. Scott – Ph.D. (Electrical Engineering)
It should be pointed out, because it is a little unclear, that only Hannes Alfvén and Irving Langmuir were awarded Nobel Prizes in Physics because of their work with Plasmas.
Kristian Birkeland never received the Nobel Prize although he was nominated a record seven times.
It was reported that Birkeland did not receive the prize because the committee thought he had "commercialized" his work by developing an electrically based method of fixing Nitrogen into fertilizer by blasting it with artificial lightning. That was not acceptable for a pure research scientist and his work was somehow tainted because he had commercialized it and made monetary gain. Therefore, the no prize.
Interestingly, Hannes Alfvén was awarded the prize for his earlier work in which he erroneously concluded that Plasmas could be "magnetized" and it was the residual magnetic force that made Plasmas act as they did... but on accepting the Nobel, he used his speech to plead with the scientific community to ignore the work for which he was nominated and won... because he was WRONG! He said that instead of residual magnetic force accounting for the phenomena, it was a continual creation of magnetism because of the flow of electrons through the Plasma.