Something new under the sun

Zeuzzz said:
I'm glad you metioned Ned's material, as most plasma cosmologists have addressed his points and thouroughly debunked his material. And his other points have been addressed too.
Click to expand...
This rapidly becomes a little ridiculous as both sides claim to have debunked the other, doesn't it?

Besides, I don't find his rebuttal that impressive. Take this bit just as an example:

'But in the BB hypothesis, which assumes the CBR originated BEHIND all clusters of galaxies and other very dense concentrations of matter, interactions with electrons will decrease the CBR luminosity. So there should be an anti-correlation of galaxies and CBR on small angular scales. Just the opposite is observed[Scranton et al, arXiv:astrop-ph/0307335]'

One wonders, if this is right, how Scranton et al managed to fit an ISW+SZ function to their data. You can see the negative contribution from the SZ effect, but it's still outweighed by the positive contribution from the ISW.

It's just not a convincing rebuttal in the slightest.
 
Dancing David said:
And you still haven't explained how a plasmoid of 40,000 solar masses avoids gravitational collapse?
Click to expand...
.
It may depend on the density (and hence size) of such mass, and the time-scale.

The man who coined the word "plasmoid" and first investigated them, Winston H. Bostick, noted with respect to the plasma in the spiral arms of galaxies, that ".. Chandrasekhar and Fermi have shown that a magnetic field of 10-6 gauss in the arms is necessary to prevent the complete
gravitational collapse of the ionized hydrogen present in the arms."

With respect to plasmoids specifically, ".. the plasma being supported against the central gravitational field by the magnetic field. [..] gravitational energy is
transformed into magnetic energy".

Reference: Bostick, Winston H., "Possible Hydromagnetic Simulation of Cosmical Phenomena in the Laboratory.", Cosmical Gas Dynamics, Proceedings from IAU Symposium no. 8.
 
Zeuzzz said:
I really find it hard to take you seriously when you have stated previously that plasma cosmolgy is a pseudoscience, despite the large amount of academics in that field, and also that scientists that do not believe in the big bang are crackpots too.
Click to expand...


I also said that people who continue to push discredited ideas are crackpots... like you.


Heres a brief list some of the people you think are crackpots, as they are plasma cosmologists or they dont believe in the Big Bang Theory;
Click to expand...


Wow, so in response to criticism about making arguments from authority, Zeuzzz... makes MORE arguments from authority!

Can anyone say "circular argument"? :rolleyes:


They obviously have good reasons to doubt BBT or believe in plasma cosmology, they are not doing this (as you would have us believe) solely because they are cranks. Can you accept the fact that these people have viable scientific reasons for thier opinions?
Click to expand...


Nope, because they are wrong. Just because you've won some awards or have a PhD after your name doesn't make you infalliable. It's like you claiming that I think "Einstein is a god" (one of the stupidest things I've ever heard), neglecting the fact that he was completely wrong to reject a fully developed quantum theory.

Your argument is the same kind of b.s. argument from authority that creationists like those at the Dishonesty Institute continually make with their "Dissent from Darwinism" list. They say, "See?! We have people who have PhD's who don't accept evolution." And those people are just as wrong as you and the signers of your "Cosmology Statement".


I dont like to make arguments on peoples status alone, but when you think that all these people are crackpots, I think that it is you with the problem, not them.
Click to expand...


Then why continue to do it? Hmmm... let me guess... :rolleyes:
 
Zeuzzz said:
Well, i spent three years studying physics and relativity and I was an adament believer in relativity by the end of it. Now i'm not so sure. I always keep an open mind when dealing with relativity, as it has many people who oppose it, but so many mathematicians that love it. For example there are many experiments that seem to verify GR, which is why i used to beleive it. But it is very hard to come up with tests that will falsify it, as it is based on an ill defined unit which is used as a dimension in itself; time. If a theory is unfalsifyable, then it cant be an accurate theory. The theory of relativity is unfalsifiable because no experiment can refute it because there really is no way to test the theory in a true inertial frame since all practical experiments must be performed in non-inertial frames, as a matter of necessity.
Click to expand...


How in the hell are those two statements not contradictory?! If you can do experiments that test GR, then it is falsifiable you idiot!!!

And if you don't believe that, then throw away your satellite radio, GPS receivers, etc because that is all technology based off the experimentally verified theory of GR. Or are you going to maintain that we all just "got lucky" when developing that technology? Good grief.

This clown isn't worth the time anymore - let the troll starve...
 
iantresman said:
.
It may depend on the density (and hence size) of such mass, and the time-scale.

The man who coined the word "plasmoid" and first investigated them, Winston H. Bostick, noted with respect to the plasma in the spiral arms of galaxies, that ".. Chandrasekhar and Fermi have shown that a magnetic field of 10-6 gauss in the arms is necessary to prevent the complete
gravitational collapse of the ionized hydrogen present in the arms."

With respect to plasmoids specifically, ".. the plasma being supported against the central gravitational field by the magnetic field. [..] gravitational energy is
transformed into magnetic energy".

Reference: Bostick, Winston H., "Possible Hydromagnetic Simulation of Cosmical Phenomena in the Laboratory.", Cosmical Gas Dynamics, Proceedings from IAU Symposium no. 8.
Click to expand...

Hi Ian,

Here is the deal, there is the mass of 40,000 suns in an area less than 1AU in diameter and that is the lower limit for the amount of mass.

The thing is not going to stay extended in volume against the pull of gravity, this has been discussed here in this thread.

If you have 40,000 solar masses in an area less than 1 AU as a sphere , the mass is going to move to the common center of gravity. The power of magnetic/electrostatic repulsion or whatever is being hypothesised to hold the plasmoid in an expanded state is going to have to be huge to hold the thing in an expanded state.

From what the people with the numbers here have said it would be a violation of gravity as expressed by general relativity.

So I am asking, not how could a smaller plasmoid be extended in a volume. I am asking how a mass of 40,000 suns in a volume sphere with a radius of 1 AU is going to stay extended in that volume and not collapse. The electrical repulsion, the magnetic repulsion is not going to be sifficient to hold it extended.

In the Betelgeuse example we have the heat energy generated by the fusion in the star to hold the star in an expanded state , when that fusion can no longer occur, the star will collapse.

So far, no one has presented any theory or math that explains how a plasmoid of 40,000 solar masses is going to avoid gravitational collapse.


It doesn't matter if you think that the plasmoid is going to experience more electrical or magnetic repulsion as it collapses, as was already discussed in this thread the attraction of 40,000 solar masses will overwhelm it. Period.
 
Last edited:
MattusMaximus said:
I also said that people who continue to push discredited ideas are crackpots... like you.
Click to expand...
.
Calling people names is not a very strong argument. It's also offensive and disrespectful. Even my 14-year-old son has stopped using ad hominems. If you would like some help in developing this line of attack, I'm sure I could find some sources in the National Inquirer... or Mad Magazine used to have some good put-downs, with the benefit of some cartoons that some people tell me are quite droll.

However, I would be delighted to have you adhere to the scientific method, by providing a couple of peer reviewed papers that discredit plasma cosmology/universe. It shouldn't be too difficult... there have been hundreds of papers on the subject over the years.
 
Dancing David said:
Here is the deal, there is the mass of 40,000 suns in an area less than 1AU in diameter and that is the lower limit for the amount of mass.
Click to expand...
.
Sorry about that, I didn't see the bit "in an area less than 1AU in diameter". I have no idea whether a plasmoid could exist at that density.
 
BeAChooser said:
I think that would surprise astronomers since there are 20+ solar mass stars that have diameters less than 1 AU which are not black holes. What do you think Betelgeuse was before it ballooned into a red giant?
Click to expand...
:jaw-dropp

iantresman said:
.
Sorry about that, I didn't see the bit "in an area less than 1AU in diameter". I have no idea whether a plasmoid could exist at that density.
Click to expand...
I kinda abandoned lurking here, since it got ridiculous enough that even I could see the stupidity of some arguments....
But which quote are we talking here.The last one would certainly indicate some sort of degenerate matter, at least, while BeAChooser's quote actually encompases pretty much all the suns in the known universe...
1Au=93E6 miles, right? 20 times the mass would be only about 3 times the diameter, ignoring pressure effects...
 
iantresman said:
.
Sorry about that, I didn't see the bit "in an area less than 1AU in diameter". I have no idea whether a plasmoid could exist at that density.
Click to expand...


thats cool, but again anything that large that is not collapsing has got to have some way of staying expanded. A star that had the mass of 40,000 suns would burn through it's feul really quickly, and blooie, it collapses into something with a supernove along the way.

With 40,000 solar masses, even if it blows away 99% of it's mass it is going to be a black hole.
 
iantresman said:
.
Calling people names is not a very strong argument. It's also offensive and disrespectful. Even my 14-year-old son has stopped using ad hominems. If you would like some help in developing this line of attack, I'm sure I could find some sources in the National Inquirer... or Mad Magazine used to have some good put-downs, with the benefit of some cartoons that some people tell me are quite droll.
Click to expand...


So you criticize ad hominems by responding with your own ad hominem. Wow... so much for your high ground, Mr. Hypocrite.

If you and the other EU-PU woos & cranks on this thread have such a thin skin, then just stay out of those hardball scientific meetings. You wouldn't want to get your feelings hurt by those big mean scientists when they really put your feet to the fire, now would ya?


However, I would be delighted to have you adhere to the scientific method, by providing a couple of peer reviewed papers that discredit plasma cosmology/universe. It shouldn't be too difficult... there have been hundreds of papers on the subject over the years.
Click to expand...


Plenty of people (including me) have been doing just that for 8+ pages on this thread. It just seems that you and your woo brethren are basically immune to the scientific method and consensus mainstream science. Presenting information out of context and showing a dismal knowledge of the very big bang cosmology and GR that you claim to be criticizing don't put you in a good place to be making demands.

Besides, it isn't incumbent upon us or the mainstream scientific community to prove you wrong. It is incumbent upon yourself to prove your ideas right. And by the reaction of the folks on this thread who do know BBC, GR, and cosmology in general, you're doing a piss-poor job of that.

I could just as easily challenge you to prove my theory of Drunken Cosmic Leprechauns wrong, and I bet you can't do it. So that just makes me right! ;)
 
Dancing David said:
With 40,000 solar masses, even if it blows away 99% of it's mass it is going to be a black hole.
Click to expand...


That's correct. If we're talking about stellar black holes, by the time about 1.5-3 solar masses are accumulated into one body, gravitational collapse into a black hole is pretty much inevitable at some point.
 
iantresman said:
.
Sorry about that, I didn't see the bit "in an area less than 1AU in diameter". I have no idea whether a plasmoid could exist at that density.
Click to expand...
That is the whole point. Any mass concentrated in a small enough volume is a black hole. For the objects we have observed in the center of galaxies (ours and M87 for example) we have masses of at least 40,000 solar masses (in our galaxy) within 45 AU (at most). The probable masses are 3 million (us) and 3 billion (M87). These are black holes not plasmoids.
Your quote ".. Chandrasekhar and Fermi have shown that a magnetic field of 10-6 gauss in the arms is necessary to prevent the complete
gravitational collapse of the ionized hydrogen present in the arms." probably applies to smaller masses of plasma in much larger volumes (maybe the entire galactic arm mentioned).
 
iantresman said:
.
Calling people names is not a very strong argument.
Click to expand...

You've been more reasonable than the rest. Nonetheless, calling someone a crackpot or a woo is a descriptive term, which applies when they believe in crackpot or woo ideas. It's like calling someone a Christian when they believe in the resurrection of Christ. Some would find being called a Christian offensive - me, for example - and some wouldn't.

I think even you will admit that the plasma universe is a fringe idea, rejected by the vast majority of scientists in the field. That makes it by definition a crackpot idea, and anyone that believes in it a crackpot. Let me stress that I do not regard that term as pejorative - I would describe Einstein in 1904 as a crackpot. However a very few years later the truth of his ideas was manifest, and he became the mainstream. That almost always happens when the ideas are actually correct.

All of this means that if you want to convince experts that plasma cosmology is reasonable you have a tremendous amount of work to do, and you must approach them on their own terms - you must understand why they think what they think, and then try to show them why it's wrong. But that first stage is crucial. If you don't understand the standard paradigm it's going to be extremely difficult to argue against, especially when your pet idea is so flimsy.
 
Last edited:
MattusMaximus said:
Plenty of people (including me) have been doing just that for 8+ pages on this thread. It just seems that you and your woo brethren are basically immune to the scientific method and consensus mainstream science. Presenting information out of context and showing a dismal knowledge of the very big bang cosmology and GR that you claim to be criticizing don't put you in a good place to be making demands.
Click to expand...


Presenting information out of context? Where?

Well I scanned back through the last few pages, and not to my surprise, the plasma cosmology material has not been addressed. You seem to think that anything being discussed falls under the category of plasma cosmology, which shows how ignorant you are on this subject. Only a few posts would be considered plasma cosmology material, the ones where I quoted a series of plasma cosmology papers all published in mainstream astronomy journals, the post where I showed how misleading the wikipedia article on PC was, many of Ians posts, and a couple more. I am correct in saying that (still) none of the actual plasma cosmology material has been rebutted.

Lots of arguing about personal opinions, EU theory, etc, but still not any scientific rebuttals of the material that falls under the PC bracket.

There are other more controversial subjects which have had some half valid criticism, much of the Electric Universe concepts, such as the sun possessing a large charge, the subject of relativity scepticism and black holes, this is firmly EU material. Plasma cosmologists have got a more solid foundation to work on, and although some PC proponents do endorse the more radical views of EU theory, many don’t. The other work of Crothers about Black Holes etc, is not plasma cosmology material, he would not consider himself a plasma cosmologist, and his work is largely unrelated.


In fact re-reading the posts so far I have come to the conclusion that you are not a very nice person, i can barely read any posts you have written without you referring to derogatory terms, "Crank", "Crackpots", "Trolls", "Idiots" that doesn't make you look very good does it?

Note that there has hardly been one personal attack on you. I really have to wonder why you are continually so abusive when you are not receiving any in return? Why not just quickly point out the errors in the material (if its really all so wrong), and not spend so much of your time hanging out here and being abusive?

Someone like Ziggurat for example seems like a much more respectable person than you, I have not had many problems with most of his comments (past a few differences in opinion about some of the more radical EU ideas), and he seems to refrain from abusive language. This makes him seem far more knowledgeable than you, as you seem to reacting with much more emotion than scientific rigour. You should take a leaf out of his book Mattus, your conduct does you no favors.

Besides, it isn't incumbent upon us or the mainstream scientific community to prove you wrong.
Click to expand...


Hilarious! :)

Finding it bit hard to debunk are you?

It is incumbent upon yourself to prove your ideas right. And by the reaction of the folks on this thread who do know BBC, GR, and cosmology in general, you're doing a piss-poor job of that.
Click to expand...


Well, I would expect people who know BBC and GR theories to not be convinced by something that challenges their world view so much, its a perfectly human response. I'm just still waiting for a scientific reason to dismiss it. Feels like i've been asking for ages now, and all we've got is a shoddy wikipedia article which is easily disproved, and a half arsed attempt from Ned Wright which has been rebutted by Lerner for years now.
 
Last edited:
Zeuzzz said:
Finding it bit hard to debunk are you?
Click to expand...

There have been many, many things you've said which have been thoroughly debunked. Now you seem to be claiming those weren't actually plasma cosmology.

Fine - why don't you list one single concrete claim of plasma cosmology which disagrees with the mainstream. Perhaps "electromagnetic effects can explain galactic rotation curves". You choose, and choose carefully.

Then we will debunk it, on the condition that you agree to stop posting about PC if we succeed.

Deal?
 
sol invictus said:
Quite a lot.

It is rejected by the scientific mainstream, but its proponents try to make it seem as if there is no consensus by compiling lists of cranks in their camp.
Click to expand...


Subjective use of the word crank...


It is based on faith rather than reason. In the case of plasma cosmology, that manifests itself in the lack of a mathematical, quantitative theory and the denial of all evidence.
Click to expand...


Instead of jumping to this (quite incorrect) instantaneous conclusion, why not ask for someone to show some of the mathematical concepts involved? so far no-one has, and no-one has posted even a slight fraction of plasma cosmology material here yet, this thread was supposed to be about gravitational anomalies. Maybe i need to start an entirely new thread for plasma cosmology. There are many new areas of plasma cosmology and astrophysics, what area in particular would you like to know the maths of? double layers? Pinch effects? diocotron instabilities? Motion Induced Εlectric Fields? Faraday Disk Dynamo's? Biot-Savart force? Unipolar inductors? Birkeland currents? Double layers? Magnetic Mirror Effect? Electrostatics? Particle Acceleration? Magnetohydrodynamics? Debye spheres? CIV? Current sheets? Debye length? Wolf effect? take your pick.

sol invictus said:
Does plasma cosmology explain where the universe came from?
Click to expand...


Thank you! a question about plasma cosmology, i thought no-one would ever ask. Maybe soon you will actually understand what you are arguing against :)
This is the fundamental difference between the two cosmologies, their completely different approach to the origin of the universe, and how much this subject influences other work in their respective field.

First, lets get a quick overview of standard cosmology, for the sake of comparison.

http://www.physicspost.com/articles.php?articleId=229
You may or may not be aware that cosmology is not a basic term. There are many types of cosmology, and each one is looked at in a different way. For instance, you will come across what is known as physical cosmology, religious cosmology, and modern metaphysical cosmology.

As of late, more and more people are beginning to become interested in modern metaphysical cosmology. This type of cosmology can best be described as metaphysics and philosophy combined to study the totality of space and time.

There are many ways that modern metaphysical cosmology is separated from the others listed above. Generally speaking, there are three questions that are addressed when it comes to this type of cosmology. They are as follows:

1. What is the main reason that the Universe exists?

2. What are the material components that the Universe is made up of?

3. Is the overall existence of the Universe a necessity? Where did it come from, and what is the cause of it?

Over the years, many people have had different views on modern metaphysical cosmology. When it comes down to it, people who are interested in modern metaphysical cosmology address the questions listed above. And overall, these questions cannot be answered by looking deeper into science.
Click to expand...


I found this, which I think sums up the difference pretty well;

Plasma Cosmology is a disciplinary framework which has a different set of basic assumptions and thought processes which form it's underlying scientific and philosophical foundation on which to build further meaning. It is by definition a different paradigm than that of the standard Big Bang cosmology.

At the basis of Plasma Cosmology are many ideas which integrate into a semi-coherent world-view that is quite different than that formed within the Big Bang framework. As an example, within Plasma Cosmology is the idea that Cosmogony and Eschatology of the universe as a whole is not entirely within the realm of humanly verifiable knowledge, hence the question of how the universe as a whole began or will end takes a back seat to the more verifiable question 'what processes are at work currently, that we can measure and study.' The universe is viewed as 'eternal' for all we know.

Plasma Cosmology appears to be a Metaphysical Cosmology that attempts to incorporate and reconcile some aspects of process philosophy with the parts of Physical Cosmology that are not inherent to and dependent on the BB paradigm. Cosmogony of the universe itself (as opposed to solar systems, which are considered) takes a back seat in this framework, as the focus is switched to the current processes and manifestations of observables.

Process philosophy comes into play in a much greater extent under this paradigm. The gravitational, object oriented viewpoint is replaced by an electromagnetic, process oriented viewpoint.


Plasma cosmology is much more concerned with the picture now, the science of what is occurring definitively, and does not feel the need to base all their models on something that happened (supposedly) that long ago. They do not have the constraints of working backwards from billions of years ago, and stick to the science of things in process now which are more verifiable. To me, this seems like a much more logical approach in general than Big Bang cosmology. When sufficient information is known, maybe the true question of the origin can be adequately answered in the future, but plasma cosmologists definitely do not see the Big Bang as the definitive explanation, for reasons they have clearly outlined. And many other scientists do not either.

You should watch the cosmology quest documentary (which you can watch here on youtube), which features many top cosmologists, astronomers and plasma physicists, Margaret Burbidge, Nobel Laureate Kary B. Mullis, Andre Koch Assis, Fred Hoyle, Halton Arp, Geoffrey Burbidge, Jean-Claude Pecker, Kristoffer Rypdal, etc. They seem to be taking a similar view to plasma cosmology and are becoming ever more critical of the Big Bang, and considering their highly respected position in the cosmology community these people most certainly can not be ignored. No matter how much Mattus disingenuously claims they are all 'cranks'
 
Last edited:
Zeuzzz said:
Plasma cosmology is much more concerned with the picture now, the science of what is occurring definitively, and does not feel the need to base all their models on something that happened (supposedly) that long ago.
Click to expand...

In other words, they cannot account for the origins of the universe, and yet you still feel justified in criticizing standard cosmology on the topic. That is, in a word, pure hypocrisy. Actually, I'm wrong. That's two words.

They do not have the constraints of working backwards from billions of years ago, and stick to the science of things in process now which are more verifiable.
Click to expand...

Are you saying that they cannot run the clock backwards on their theory to deduce what the universe used to be like? That's a failing, not a feature. And if that's not what you mean, then what does happen if you run the clock backwards?

To me, this seems like a much more logical approach in general than Big Bang cosmology.
Click to expand...

No, it isn't. It's more satisfying to you, but not for reasons of logic.
 
Last edited:
Zeuzzz said:
You should watch the cosmology quest documentary (which you can watch [<url removed as I can't post them>], which features many top cosmologists, astronomers and plasma physicists, Margaret Burbidge, Nobel Laureate Kary B. Mullis, Andre Koch Assis, Fred Hoyle, Halton Arp, Geoffrey Burbidge, Jean-Claude Pecker, Kristoffer Rypdal, etc. They seem to be taking a similar view to plasma cosmology and are becoming ever more critical of the Big Bang, and considering their highly respected position in the cosmology community these people most certainly can not be ignored. No matter how much Mattus disingenuously claims they are all 'cranks'
Click to expand...

Nice. Nobel Laureate Kary B Mullis. Who won the Noble prize for... chemistry. So does that make him a top cosmologist, astronomer or plasma physicist? Interestingly, according to wiki, he's also skeptical that CFCs cause ozone depletion, that humans are causing Global Warming and that HIV causes AIDS. Are you sure you want him in your list?
As for Fred Hoyle, well, (not meaning to be crude but) I don't think he'll be adding much more to the debate.
 
Last edited:
Zeuzzz said:
You should watch the cosmology quest documentary (which you can watch here on youtube), which features many top cosmologists, astronomers and plasma physicists, Margaret Burbidge, Nobel Laureate Kary B. Mullis, Andre Koch Assis, Fred Hoyle, Halton Arp, Geoffrey Burbidge, Jean-Claude Pecker, Kristoffer Rypdal, etc. They seem to be taking a similar view to plasma cosmology and are becoming ever more critical of the Big Bang, and considering their highly respected position in the cosmology community these people most certainly can not be ignored. No matter how much Mattus disingenuously claims they are all 'cranks'
Click to expand...
I was going to view all of this video until I looked at the end of the first section. Apparently Halton Arp is the new Galileo because he is a heretic and fired from a job (actually he was refused telescope time and resigned). :jaw-dropp
 
sol invictus said:
There have been many, many things you've said which have been thoroughly debunked. Now you seem to be claiming those weren't actually plasma cosmology.

Fine - why don't you list one single concrete claim of plasma cosmology which disagrees with the mainstream. Perhaps "electromagnetic effects can explain galactic rotation curves". You choose, and choose carefully.

Then we will debunk it, on the condition that you agree to stop posting about PC if we succeed.

Deal?
Click to expand...

Zeuzzz said:
Instead of jumping to this (quite incorrect) instantaneous conclusion, why not ask for someone to show some of the mathematical concepts involved?
Click to expand...

Please do - but on one condition. See my post above.


Plasma Cosmology appears to be a Metaphysical Cosmology that attempts to incorporate and reconcile some aspects of process philosophy with the parts of Physical Cosmology that are not inherent to and dependent on the BB paradigm. Cosmogony of the universe itself (as opposed to solar systems, which are considered) takes a back seat in this framework, as the focus is switched to the current processes and manifestations of observables.

Process philosophy comes into play in a much greater extent under this paradigm. The gravitational, object oriented viewpoint is replaced by an electromagnetic, process oriented viewpoint.
Click to expand...

So, to summarize: it's not physics.
 
sol invictus said:
There have been many, many things you've said which have been thoroughly debunked. Now you seem to be claiming those weren't actually plasma cosmology.

Fine - why don't you list one single concrete claim of plasma cosmology which disagrees with the mainstream. Perhaps "electromagnetic effects can explain galactic rotation curves". You choose, and choose carefully.

Then we will debunk it, on the condition that you agree to stop posting about PC if we succeed.

Deal?
Click to expand...


Deal.

I would say that plasma scaleability, and the experimental methods applicability to astronomy and cosmology would be a good starting topic.
 
Last edited:
Zeuzzz said:
Deal.

I would say that plasma scaleability, and the experimental methods applicability to astronomy and cosmology would be a good starting topic.
Click to expand...

Please make a single concrete claim.

Again, I suggest rotation curves.
 
Zeuzzz said:
Whats wrong with plasma scaleability and its application to the cosmos?
Click to expand...

If you will define precisely what you mean by that, it might be OK. As it is it's incredibly vague. You need to say, "such and such specific observed effect is due to such and such".

Look, just as an example - "galactic rotation curves do not follow the pattern expected from the visible mass of galaxies and the inverse square law for gravity, because there is approximately 5 times as much dark matter as visible matter distributed in a roughly spherical halo centered on the galactic disk, with such and such a density distribution. The DM particles have a mass between X and Y, a lifetime greater than Z, and an electromagnetic cross section less than W."

Please provide one concrete statement like that from PC.
 
MattusMaximus said:
iantresman said:
Calling people names is not a very strong argument. It's also offensive and disrespectful. Even my 14-year-old son has stopped using ad hominems. If you would like some help in developing this line of attack, I'm sure I could find some sources in the National Inquirer... or Mad Magazine used to have some good put-downs, with the benefit of some cartoons that some people tell me are quite droll.
Click to expand...
So you criticize ad hominems by responding with your own ad hominem. Wow... so much for your high ground, Mr. Hypocrite.
Click to expand...
.
I did no such thing. I criticisized your actions; I did not call you, nor anyone else any names.

Calling someone "Mr Hypocrite" or a "woo" is an ad hominem as it refers directly to an invivdual. Calling their argument hypocrotical is not as it does not refer directly to the invidual.

I am happy to clarify the situation, for the umpteenth time now. When I explain it to my 14-year-old son, he understood it first time.
 
MattusMaximus said:
iantresman said:
However, I would be delighted to have you adhere to the scientific method, by providing a couple of peer reviewed papers that discredit plasma cosmology/universe. It shouldn't be too difficult... there have been hundreds of papers on the subject over the years.
Click to expand...

Plenty of people (including me) have been doing just that for 8+ pages on this thread.
Click to expand...
.
If plenty have people have being doing so, it should be trivial to COPY such references from a previous post. A peer reviewed paper includes an author, a paper title, the journal name, and its volume and date (and ideally a link to an abstract).

Providing such papers will be to your credit. No papers, or more ad hominems or repeating the claims will discredit your assertion.
 
MattusMaximus said:
Besides, it isn't incumbent upon us or the mainstream scientific community to prove you wrong. It is incumbent upon yourself to prove your ideas right. And by the reaction of the folks on this thread who do know BBC, GR, and cosmology in general, you're doing a piss-poor job of that.
Click to expand...
.
I agree with you that plasma cosmology has not been proven. But you asserted that plasma cosmology had been discredited, not that it hadn't been proven.
 
sol invictus said:
I think even you will admit that the plasma universe is a fringe idea, rejected by the vast majority of scientists in the field. That makes it by definition a crackpot idea, and anyone that believes in it a crackpot. Let me stress that I do not regard that term as pejorative -
Click to expand...
.
Characterize the idea, not the person. Then regardless of whether someone thinks a term is pejorative or not, you will never uninitentionally insult the person.

The term "woo", for example, is generally considered to be "a derogatory and dismissive term".

I'm not aware of anyone who considers the term "Christian" to be pejorative.
 
iantresman said:
.
I agree with you that plasma cosmology has not been proven. But you asserted that plasma cosmology had been discredited, not that it hadn't been proven.
Click to expand...
I agree with you that plasma "cosmology" has not been discredited. But this is because it is so obviously wrong that scientists do not want to waste their time addressing it. They have a lot of better things to do, e.g test the actual predictions from Big Bang Cosmology with actual observations.

Interesting experiment: Go to a abstract and citation database like Scopus and search for "plasma cosmology". I get 14 results (9 papers, a book and 2 reviews) that mention the phrase. They cover the years 1987 to 2007 (20 years!) and have a grand total of 11 citations. None of the results are published in a journal devoted to cosmology and probably were not reviewed by cosmologists.

The number of citations show that the scientific community is totally uninterested in plasma "cosmology". One wonders why:rolleyes:!

P.S. If you expand the search for the 2 words "plasma" and "cosmology" there are more results (230) but most of these are on the role of plasma in BB cosmology and even looking at quark-gluon plasmas.
 
iantresman said:
.
I agree with you that plasma cosmology has not been proven. But you asserted that plasma cosmology had been discredited, not that it hadn't been proven.
Click to expand...

Let me advance the same challenge to you I did to Zeuzzz:

Please give one single concrete and specific claim of plasma cosmology which disagrees with the mainstream view. Something like "electromagnetic effects can explain galactic rotation curves". You choose, and choose carefully.

Then we will debunk it, on the condition that you agree to stop posting about PC if we succeed.

Deal?
 
In reply to Dancing Davids question
And you still haven't explained how a plasmoid of 40,000 solar masses avoids gravitational collapse?
Click to expand...
you state
iantresman said:
.
It may depend on the density (and hence size) of such mass, and the time-scale.
Click to expand...
The size is 45 AU in radius. The timescale is the age of the galaxy.

Please supply an answer.

For everyone else's information - this is a an OT sub-thread started by the mention of matter that does not emit light, e.g. dark matter and black holes. BeAChooser then doubted their existence. When presented with observations of the massive black holes at the center of our galaxy and the M87 galaxy, he asked why they were not plasmoids (see the Wikipedia article which funnily enough does not mention anything outside of the Solar System :) ). It was pointed out that anything with a big enough mass packed into a small enough volume forms a black hole. The accepted size and volume of our black hole is 3.7 million solar masses within a volume with radius no larger than 6.25 light-hours (45 AU) or about 4.2 billion miles. One press article mentions a lower limit of 40,000 solar masses so we are content with calculations using that figure.
 
Reality Check said:
Interesting experiment: Go to a abstract and citation database like Scopus and search for "plasma cosmology". I get 14 results (9 papers, a book and 2 reviews) that mention the phrase. They cover the years 1987 to 2007 (20 years!) and have a grand total of 11 citations. None of the results are published in a journal devoted to cosmology and probably were not reviewed by cosmologists.
Click to expand...
.
Some time ago, I emailed one of Alfvén's co-authors, and asked whether it would be fair to call him a "plasma cosmologist". No he replied, I'm a plasma astrophysicist.

My point is that the term "plasma cosmology" is not necessarily ideal for searching papers on the subject. Aspects of it are referred to as the Plasma Universe, and some of it is just plain plasma astrophysics.

I don't think most scientists consider plasma cosmology to be wrong. I think most scientists haven't read papers on the subject.
 
iantresman said:
.
Some time ago, I emailed one of Alfvén's co-authors, and asked whether it would be fair to call him a "plasma cosmologist". No he replied, I'm a plasma astrophysicist.

My point is that the term "plasma cosmology" is not necessarily ideal for searching papers on the subject. Aspects of it are referred to as the Plasma Universe, and some of it is just plain plasma astrophysics.

I don't think most scientists consider plasma cosmology to be wrong. I think most scientists haven't read papers on the subject.
Click to expand...


This is a very good point (that i have pointed out before), the actual number of scientists that consider themselves plasma cosmologists as such is small, this term was coined by Alfven ( i think ) and is not used by many, but most people who write material highly relevant to plasma cosmology would consider themselves plasma astrophysicists.
 
Reality Check said:
[..] And you still haven't explained how a plasmoid of 40,000 solar masses avoids gravitational collapse?

The size is 45 AU in radius. The timescale is the age of the galaxy.
Click to expand...
.
I have no idea how such a plasmoid would behave. Perhaps you would first point me to a paper which shows that a plasmoid of 40,000 solar masses of size 45 AU, would collapse.
 
Zeuzzz said:
This is a very good point (that i have pointed out before), the actual number of scientists that consider themselves plasma cosmologists as such is small, this term was coined by Alfven ( i think ) and is not used by many, but most people who write material highly relevant to plasma cosmology would consider themselves plasma astrophysicists.
Click to expand...
.
I can find no references to Hannes Alfvén using the term "plasma cosmology". He certainly coined the term "Plasma Universe" in 1986, and mentions cosmology with respect to the Plasma Universe,[ref]. Before this time, Alfvén describes cosmology with respect to anti-matter in his discussions on Oscar Klein's theory (Klein cosmology),[Ref] later to developed as Klein-Alfvén cosmology. On the other hand, Anthony Peratt says that "'Plasma Cosmology' is the study of the plasma universe"[Ref]
 
iantresman said:
My point is that the term "plasma cosmology" is not necessarily ideal for searching papers on the subject. Aspects of it are referred to as the Plasma Universe, and some of it is just plain plasma astrophysics.
Click to expand...

Zeuzzz said:
This is a very good point (that i have pointed out before), the actual number of scientists that consider themselves plasma cosmologists as such is small, this term was coined by Alfven ( i think ) and is not used by many, but most people who write material highly relevant to plasma cosmology would consider themselves plasma astrophysicists.
Click to expand...

Plasma is important in astrophysics. All astrophysicists and physicists understand that, and there is nothing controversial about it. Which makes my challenge to you two even more relevant.

I repeat:

Please give one single concrete and specific claim of plasma cosmology which disagrees with the mainstream view. Something like "electromagnetic effects can explain galactic rotation curves". You choose, and choose carefully.

Then we will debunk it, on the condition that you agree to stop posting about PC if we succeed.

Deal?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom