questions based on a Wikipedia article
Setterfield: There is indeed bias against this field of study and an unwillingness to give up dogma. However, many of the proponents of plasma physics have created their own problems due to their approach to cosmology. This is where the primary criticism of the article is focused, not the actual physics.
Setterfield: The basics of plasma physics have shown that these things are so by experiments in the lab which can be reproduced and up-scaled to the dimensions of galaxies and beyond. These experiments do indeed demonstrate the validity of the concepts claimed in this paragraph.
Setterfield: On this matter there are two responses. First, the Dutch radio astronomer Gerrit Verschuur demonstrated that electric currents of 10,000 billion amperes were flowing in plasma clouds in the spiral arms of our Milky Way. That is 10^13 amps within our galaxy quite apart from the galaxy as a whole. The 1018 amps is an easily sustainable concept for a whole galaxy as a result.
Second, most astronomical equipment can only measure magnetic fields; they are not equipped to measure electric currents. The result is that some erroneously claim that the currents do not exist. However, there is no known way of producing a magnetic field without an electric current, and the magnetic fields measured as pervading the disks of galaxies like M51 are so high that the currents that must sustain them are of the magnitude needed. The magnetic fields are there and have been measured, so the currents must be there also.
The error that most astronomers make is that they assume the magnetic fields to be primordial without any currents to generate them. This approach misses the primary physics behind the formation of those fields. The problem has been to get astronomers to admit their error in assuming the magnetic fields exist on their own without electric currents. This problem has sent cosmologists off looking for magnetic monopoles or mechanisms to form them so that the magnetic fields can exist on their own. Magnetic monopoles have never been found, despite an extensive search.
Setterfield: It is here that there is a degree of truth. Many plasma cosmologists reject the Big Bang and the time-evolution of the cosmos and also an expanding universe. The reason can be found in their philosophical approach and the conclusions which come from that. I do not hold with their philosophy, nor do I hold with their erroneous conclusions which come from this approach. Nor do I dismiss the data they do because of their bias. The ZPE-Plasma model we have presented takes into account all the lab results from plasma physics and the data from astronomy and brings the two together in a synthesis which is remaining true to observational evidence.
The problem is that plasma physicists are nearly all atheists and will have nothing to do with the Bible. They see the Big Bang as being too close to the Biblical scenario of creation of something out of nothing and an expansion of the cosmos (mentioned 12 times in the Bible) to be acceptable. Therefore, they have a model of an eternal universe, and in accepting that model they must deny data that points to the contrary. This forces them to form quasars by expulsion of material from nearby galaxies instead of being the cores of very distant galaxies. They must also deny the evidence for universal expansion provided by the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR). And so the list goes on.
The problem started back in the 1960’s when the old Steady State theory of the universe held sway and the Big Bang was in the minority. The Steady State idea was that the universe was eternal and looked the same at all times throughout eternity. Then the discovery of quasars came along and proved that the universe was different with time, as quasars were prominent in the early cosmos but not now. This led to the ascendency of the Big Bang and many astronomers like Arp and Hoyle worked hard to fight against it. Unfortunately, the Plasma astronomers have aligned themselves with that cause and so this automatically makes all their pronouncements suspect to Big Bang astronomers.
Setterfield: This difficulty is basically a fault of the philosophical approach by the plasma cosmologists. I do not agree with that approach. Indeed, I accept the data that is mentioned in this Wikipedia passage on the CMBR. However, it can be entirely explained by plasma physics acting within an expanding universe. It is most unfortunate that the whole plasma concept has become bogged down by the intransigence of its proponents in maintaining an eternal cosmos and a denial of the Big Bang. When the plasma principles are applied to the actual data (which support a Big Bang), then a scenario opens up which supports Scripture 100%. So in this way both the Big Bang physicists and the Plasma physicists have provided us with information which points us to the complete Truth.
Setterfield: I think that I have addressed most of the basic issues above and what you have written is only a further questioning of the truth of what Wikipedia had written. I do not think that Eric Lerner’s model for the CMBR is in agreement with the data and so must be discarded. As far as the Alfven-Klein cosmology is concerned, there are more recent plasma approaches to the formation of elements. This has been outlined by Donald Scott in his book The Electric Sky and his other writings.