Thank You for responding Eric. Yes, that is correct. To me it makes a lot of sense. I saw that Wikipedia has found it to be obsolete. As of 2015, the vast majority of researchers openly reject plasma cosmology because it does not match modern observations of astrophysical phenomena or accepted cosmological theory. I think that is a little vague, though.
Best Regards , Lennart Thornros lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 Whatever you vividly imagine, ardently desire, sincerely believe and enthusiastically act upon, must inevitably come to pass. (PJM) On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 8:49 PM, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> wrote: > We briefly discussed an idea similar to what you show Eric. It seems > logical to me that magnetic and electric forces should have been the major > factors that allowed for the building of bodies in the solar system. They > are a zillion times larger than puny gravity especially for very small > bodies. > > And, it is apparent that iron and nickel are the main materials within the > centers of solid bodies. Strange that they happen to be magnetic. > > Dave > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Eric Walker <eric.wal...@gmail.com> > To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> > Sent: Thu, Nov 19, 2015 10:46 pm > Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: How many atoms to make condensed matter? > > On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 11:52 PM, Lennart Thornros <lenn...@thornros.com> > wrote: > > Still want to know what is not logical in the 'electrical universe'. I >> know I am in over my paygrade so I am Ok to take a hit or two. Just curious >> why the idea has not become more accepted. So let me have it.:) >> > > Is the "electrical universe" a reference to this proposal? > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_cosmology > > Eric > >
