Tuesday, December 2, 2008

Bostick's Plasmoids: Plasma Vortices and Spiral Galaxies

Ian Tresman of Plasma Universe: Bostick’s Plasmoids.

On December 12, 1956, the front page of the New York Times announced: "Physicist 'Creates' Universe in a Test Tube; Atom Gun Produces Galaxies and Gives Clues to Creation".

Just over 50 years ago, plasma physicist Winston H. Bostick made the kind of news headlines that many a scientist dreams. In his laboratory experiment Bostick created a simple "plasma gun" consisting of a 4-inch diameter glass jar around which he wound a wire carrying an electric current that created a small magnetic field. Most of the air was removed from the jar and two titanium wires were connected to a high-voltage, high-current electric power source.

On flicking the power switch, a 10,000 ampere electric current passed through the titanium wires, instantly vaporizing them and creating a puff of ionized gas (a plasma) travelling at 450,000 miles per hour. Bostick noted that the puffs of plasma formed distinctive shapes that resembled galaxies at various stages of aging and formation. Bostick called his laboratory produced plasma entities, "plasmoids".

Over the next thirty years, Bostick, a Professor of Physics at Stevens Institute of Technology in Hoboken, New Jersey, investigated plasmoids further and found that "not only the morphology [shape] but the controlling dynamic elements, electric and magnetic fields, are the same in the laboratory as in the galactic phenomena".

Bostick's theory describes galaxies as analogous to series-wound homopolar generators (a kind of motor) that convert gravitational energy of rotation into increasing magnetic energy that causes galaxies to expand away from each other. Furthermore, Bostick suggested that such a model could produce a concentration of current perpendicular to the galactic disk that would be a cosmic-sized "plasma focus" – a device that produces high energy, relativistic (near the speed of light) particle beams, or jets.

Winston H. Bostick was born in 1916, and died January 19, 1991, at age 74.

Left: Two plasmoids in a magnetic field producing similarities to the shape of barred spiral galaxies.
Right: Winston H. Bostick makes the news headlines in 1956.

Further reading: Winston H. Bostick and Plasmoids.


Anaconda said...


Galaxies, meteorites, and abiotic oil in one comment?

Read on and see.

One of the objections to Plasma Cosmology is how do galaxies form and maintain their structure?

diatreme, who has made comments on previous posts demonstrating a rabid adherence to "big bang, black hole" theory to the point of employing rhetorical artifices of various kinds (a healthy theory's proponents don't need to engage in slight of hand) has outlined the objections of astrophysicists in the "big bang, black hole" camp.

diatreme stated: "Yea, like the electric currents that are strong enough to whip stars around as if they possess the attractive force of 3.7 million solar masses of matter... :)"

diatreme after failing to make this pitch initailly couldn't make it enough as the discussion wore on (he even tried to slip it past that he HAD made the argument before [which was a giveaway to his tactics], what a slippery eel).

(Which bings up a point, if this is a major argument for "black holers", why leave it out initially?

The answer is simple enough, diatreme was following the classic pattern of a "disrupter": First, ridicule to discourage others; second, if confronted provide only enough information to sustain your argument; third, appear reasonable as long as possible; fourth, if losing when appearing reasonable, then attempt any underhanded ploy possible to sustain your credibility and supposed superiority; 5th, never admit a weakness in your case no matter how obvious; 6th, never allow a strength of the opposing side to cross your lips [key board]; and finally, 7th, when getting your ass kicked, envince disgust and maintain your supposed superiority before walking off, never give up the "upper hand".

Is this the conduct of somebody who is interested in the Scientific Method?)

To repeat: diatreme stated: "Yea, like the electric currents that are strong enough to whip stars around as if they possess the attractive force of 3.7 million solar masses of matter... :)"

As a matter of fact, yes.

But there is more to it than that.

Why are "black holers" so rabid about...welll..."black holes"?

Again, with their assumption that gravity is the predominate force in the Universe and that electromagnetism plays a subordinate role if at all, "black holes" become a necessity to their theory.

You see, gravity is such a weak force in the larger scheme of things that without "black holes" at the center of galaxies, the whole gravitational model falls apart and does not work.

And to "gin up" the necessary gravitational force to make the model work (balance out the abstract mathematical equations) the gravitational force has to be increased to almost infinite strength.

How to do that?

Imagine a piece of matter so dense that it traps light. Nice trick, once the gravitational force traps even light then scientists can't observe it and so there is no way to falsify the theory.

But the key to this puzzle is simple enough, but for an object that has never been observed and violates basic known physical laws ("black holes"), gravitational models of the Universe don't work.

(diatreme was fighting "tooth and nail" about "dark matter", most likely as an outer defense, hoping I wouldn't get to the core argument: "Black holes" are a made up object to save a theory that doesn't work without them.)

And, if gravitational models don't work, something else must be operating to form and maintain galaxies.

(That "something" is electromagnetism, much to the chagrin and rage of "big bang, black hole" thought.)

As demonstrated by diatreme, this is inconceivable to their mindset -- which is ironic considering all the assumptions of unseen objects to make their theory work.

What is the basic "rub" for gravitational force proponents?

They can't get their collective head around how much more powerful electromagnetism is than gravity, maintaining that electromagnetism's strength doesn't extend beyond atomic scale distances even though numerous scientific observations demonstrate electromagnetism's power over great distances.

Another thing, while they object to electromagnetism's power beyond atomic scale distances, they don't have a principled reason why that is true. Meaning there is no foundation of scientfic rational for why EM is limited to atomic scale distances.

In their irrational heart of hearts they think to themselves:

"God dammit, it's just true, it has to be true...or else the gravitaional model is wrong...and we can't have that!"

There is no identified limiting factor for electromagnetic power beyond atomic scale distances (there just has to be in the mind of gravitational model proponents).

Just like there is no identified limiting factor for abiotic oil processes in Earth's interior, once you establish experimentally that abiotic oil is formed in serpentization conversions of common deep crust minerals. And you get the exact same reaction from oil geologists (there just has to be a limit for abiotic oil -- even though we don't know what it is)

Meteorites have been found with hydrocarbons in their interiors -- this has been a puzzle to astrochemists, but Plasma Cosmology has an answer the carbon and hydrogen were present in the meteorite and it was "flash" electricuted in the solar nebula.

There is evidence to suggest that electric current acts on carbon and hydrogen the same way electrolysis works to seperate oxygen and hydrogen except in reverse fashion: Electrical currents act as a calalytic energy source to facilitate the natural chemical affinity carbon and hydrogen have for each other.

Iron traces and magnetite have been found in association with oil deposits. Indeed, ExxonMobil is now running an ad campaign touting their ability to locate oil by detecting oil's electromagnetic signal.

So, as it turns out, Abiotic Oil theory and Plasma Cosmology theory are linked at the basic chemistry level.

A higher energy source (electromagnetism) produces a lower chemcial energy source (abiotic hydrocarbons) in a process that satisfies the second law of thermodynamics.

A strong energy source produces a weaker energy source in a downhill distribution of energy.

Also, while I advocate hydrocarbon usage -- Nikola Tesla was right: Man can attach his machinery to the very workwheel of the Universe and once that is accomplished electricity can be substituted for many processes that are, now, currently using crude oil.

The Earth has no shortage of energy sources.

The "dirty little secret" is that if Earth is properly tapped, it has an overabundance of energy that lies just beyond Man's fingertips at present, but with ingenuity and an open-minded approach can be placed firmly within Man's grasp.

"Big bang, black hole" theory by denying the force and power of electromagnetism is standing athwart an energy revolution and a cosmological revolution, both of which can advance Man in a quantum leap in terms of understanding and harnessing his world for the betterment of Mankind.

If Albert Einstein was alive, today, you can bet he'd be with the revolutionists at the barricades shouting to bring down the astrological orthodoxies of the gravitational model -- it's wrong and stifles Man's advance into an age of energy bounty.

You have to understand the Universe before you can tap into its energy and power.

Conventional astronomy blocks that understanding the same way oil geologists block the knowldege of abiotic oil.

Anaconda said...


Calvin Coolidge was President of the United States from 1923 - 1929.

President Coolidge was known for being taciturn, earning the nick name "silent" Cal.

But when Calvin Coolidge spoke people listened.

Calvin Coolidge was Vice-President and assumed the presidency when Warren Harding died in office. He was placed on the ticket as a Massachusetts Republican reformer.

Anyway, Coolidge was a man of few words.

So, one evening at a state dinner when Coolidge was seated next to a lady -- she turned to Coolidge and said in a jesting manner, "I bet you, I can make you say three words or more." Coolidge slowly turned toward the lady and said:

"You lose."

diatreme, I got two words for you:

"You lose."

Anaconda said...


This post deals with galaxy formation per Electric Universe theory.

But the other half of the issue is the fantasy of "black holes".

Here are two links that shed light on the fantasy of "black holes".

Vampire Astronomy, Dec 03, 2008 (thunderbolts.info) -- "A complex central network of filamentary structure spirals down to the center of the galaxy. Astronomers say it provides new insights into super-massive black holes. It is more likely that it demonstrates electrical effects."


Black holes tear logic apart, March 7, 2004 (holoscience.com) --

"News reports about black holes seem to arrive about one per week. The claims are usually as outrageous as the concept of a black hole itself. Yet astronomers believe that a supermassive black hole exists at the center of every galaxy in the universe. In the BBC news report below it is headlined that a “huge black hole tears apart star.” Another report just out claims that black holes are “stringy fuzzballs.”

It is not a star but common sense that is being torn apart. Black holes are not ‘stringy’ or ‘fuzzy.’ They are a mathematical figment. They don’t exist. There was no need to invent them if the electrical nature of matter and the universe had been considered. The ‘black hole’ concept is a classic example of the malaise afflicting modern physics. Mathematicians dominate the discipline. And it is a common mistake to assume that to be very clever at mathematics is to somehow be a genius across the board. One past expert on Special Relativity took a very different view:"