Plasma Cosmology - Woo or not

Reality Check said:
If you want to have a look at the paper that is the basis for the article then here it is: A Direct Empirical Proof of the Existence of Dark Matter.

What else did you expect it to say --- LOOK! IT IS SWISS CHEESE!!!:D
Click to expand...


Yes. Quite. I suppose that the title alone did it for you?

On the possible existence of “dark matter” you may have seen headlines about a recent “proof” of dark matter based on data from a collision of galaxies. The title of the paper, to be published in the prestigious Astrophysical Journal, is “A direct empirical proof of the existence of dark matter” (Clowe et al., 2006). Upon reading this title, I became immediately suspicious because, as philosopher of science James Hall states, “Our hypotheses may get support or they may go down in flames, but they never, ever get proved”. The paper features some impressive technical discussion, but contains no discussion of some critical caveats. In particular, the argument assumes that normal matter is fully accounted for by the inventory of visible stars and hot plasmas. However, it has been reported that non-visible interstellar gas, lower-energy plasmas and brown dwarfs, in combination, likely exceed luminous stars in the local mass budget of our own galaxy (e.g., Fuchs, 2006 ref; http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998A&A...339..405F).
Click to expand...



Also, Burbidge notes that “none of this [elaborate theory] is necessary if we go back to the original observation of the He/H ratio and take the position that the observed ratio is the result of hydrogen burning in stars. Then of course, the whole of the mass must be baryonic.” Burbidge then goes through a brief calculation that leads to black body radiation with T~ 2.75° K, which is very close to the measured value of 2.726° K. On this point, Burbidge concludes that “This is either a pure coincidence as it must be for those who believe in the big bang, or else it tells us that hydrogen burning was originally responsible for the [Cosmic Background Radiation] CMB” (Burbidge, 2005, ref; http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006cic..book....3B). Burbidge also calls attention to several non-BB estimates for CMB. A simple average of six such estimates made prior to the famed Penzias and Wilson measurement of 1965 yields ~3.1° K. In contrast, BB estimates by Gamow and collaborators ranged from 5 to 50° K (Assis and Neves, 1995, ref; History of the 2.7 K Temperature Prior to Penzias and Wilson (2001) (full text)). The typical textbook account describes Gamow’s BB “prediction” and the 1965 “confirmation” without reference to this history; the real story is far more complicated.
 
Last edited:
MattusMaximus said:
Evidence for the Big Bang
Click to expand...

A list with made-up things like Dark Matter and Dark Energy is suspect.

Is there any particular evidence on this list that you find evidences BBT in your mind?


* a) Large-scale homogeneity
* b) Hubble diagram
* c) Abundances of light elements
* d) Existence of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation
* e) Fluctuations in the CMBR
* f) Large-scale structure of the universe
* g) Age of stars
* h) Evolution of galaxies
* i) Time dilation in supernova brightness curves
* j) Tolman tests
* k) Sunyaev-Zel'dovich effect
* l) Integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect
* m) Dark Matter
* n) Dark Energy
* z) Consistency
 
Dancing David said:
Just for conversations sake, and that is my goal. Let us start with black holes. How do you feel about them. As an implied part of general relativity and then as a candidate for a large massive object in a very small area (as hypothesized from say the orbits of stars at the center of our galaxy).
Click to expand...

Black holes are another made-up thought with no evidence. This idea seems to fit well with the BBT thus it is kept. Gravity is not strong enough and as such we need make-believe things to account for certain observations.


Jerome, it is fine to doubt dark matter and that is cool, yet there are some things that might need an explanation. Such as why star cluster orbit the galaxy faster than they should. Now currently MOND might explain that but it has some other problems and the PC/PU stuff just doesn't cut it for the outer stars clusters. So which one do you prefer, the dark matter or modified gravity? Or do you have an alternate like Perrat's model that you prefer?
Click to expand...

Please define your acronyms.
 
JEROME DA GNOME said:
A list with made-up things like Dark Matter and Dark Energy is suspect.
Click to expand...


Okaaaay... I'm guessing that you didn't really take any time to read that link, seeing as how you so quickly dismissed it.


Is there any particular evidence on this list that you find evidences BBT in your mind?
Click to expand...


Uh, you asked for the evidence, and I gave you some. You should read it - I'm not going to do your homework for you.

If you're going to ask for evidence and then summarily dismiss it without even reading up on it, just don't ask in the first place. It simply wastes everyone's time.
 
JEROME DA GNOME said:
Black holes are another made-up thought with no evidence. This idea seems to fit well with the BBT thus it is kept. Gravity is not strong enough and as such we need make-believe things to account for certain observations.
Click to expand...


I have decided to no longer pay any attention to Jerome, as it is clear to me now that he is simply "make believe" :D

I mean, c'mon, we all know gnomes aren't real ;)
 
JEROME DA GNOME said:
Black holes are another made-up thought with no evidence. This idea seems to fit well with the BBT thus it is kept. Gravity is not strong enough and as such we need make-believe things to account for certain observations.
Click to expand...
I am not talking about dark matter here, just the black holes: I understand the issues some people have with dark matter (although I don't agree) but on the issue of black holes I am just interested in the train of thought involved, I admit that all acience is just thought and that is an issue, but it always brings me back to my statement that science is just a means for approximating the behavior of reality. So the theories never really point to truth, they just try to predict and give possible explanations.

So black holes:
-How do you feel about the alleged explanation for the bending of light rays in a gravitational field? This has been observeed in a number of ways and is one possible explanation for the observed phenomena. IE that photons paths are deflected by gravitational fields.
-If powerfull gravitational fields exist, say for a mass of 200 suns, what might keep the material from being compressed into a neutron star when the fusion process ends? If you are not cool with neutron stars.
-What do you think would comprise an object that has an appatrent mass of 20,000 suns and is an area less than 43 AU in diameter? And has an upward limit of 300,000 solar masses.
Please define your acronyms.
Click to expand...

PC/PU is plasma cosmology/plasma universe, MOND is modified newtonian dynamics and Perrat suggests that there are these huge magnetic fields which cause the extra acceleration in the orbits of stars in galaxies.

So what i am asking is this, if you don't like dark matter, then what is your preference (if you have one for an explanation) of the observed orbital velocity of stars around galaxies?
 
Reality Check said:
NGC 7603 does not have a redshift anomoly. Pleaese quote the sentence in the paper thst states that the NGC 7603 galaxy itself has a redshift anomoly.
Click to expand...
Not only does Jerome not read the papers, It seems that it's an example of not even reading the abstract.
 
JEROME DA GNOME said:
What do you think about the anomalies in the redshift observed in galaxies such as NGC 7603?
Click to expand...

To demonstrate to us that you understand the data you've presented perhaps you could summarize the "several explanations in terms of cosmological or non-cosmological redshifts" which are discussed.
 
JEROME DA GNOME said:
What do you think about the anomalies in the redshift observed in galaxies such as NGC 7603?
Click to expand...
JEROME,

May I infer from this post of yours that the methods the authors of this paper used - in making the observations, reducing the data, analysing it, and drawing conclusions from that analysis - are acceptable, to you, as a means of going from "observation" to "evidence"?
 
In any case, what does all this new stuff, in this thread, have to do with its stated intent ("Plasma Cosmology - Woo or not")? Is JEROME a serial thread-jacker?

Is JEROME in cahoots with Zeuzzz to create (yet another) diversion?

Is this a sneaky, under-hand, tactic to avoid sharp questions being asked about the woo nature of 'Plasma Cosmology' (and, FSM forfend, actually answering such questions)?
 
DeiRenDopa said:
In any case, what does all this new stuff, in this thread, have to do with its stated intent ("Plasma Cosmology - Woo or not")? Is JEROME a serial thread-jacker?

Is JEROME in cahoots with Zeuzzz to create (yet another) diversion?

Is this a sneaky, under-hand, tactic to avoid sharp questions being asked about the woo nature of 'Plasma Cosmology' (and, FSM forfend, actually answering such questions)?
Click to expand...

It is very revealing that you do not understand how redshift anomalies have relevance to this topic.
 
Dancing David said:
PC/PU is plasma cosmology/plasma universe, MOND is modified newtonian dynamics and Perrat suggests that there are these huge magnetic fields which cause the extra acceleration in the orbits of stars in galaxies.

So what i am asking is this, if you don't like dark matter, then what is your preference (if you have one for an explanation) of the observed orbital velocity of stars around galaxies?
Click to expand...

I do not have a preference. I do not need one to discount a theory like BBT which is constantly adding new make-believe factors to correlate the data with the theory. What is it now according to the thoery, 99% of the universe is made up of Dark-Matter and Dark-Energy?
 
JEROME DA GNOME said:
What do you think about the anomalies in the redshift observed in galaxies such as NGC 7603?
Click to expand...

I would say that there is little reason at this point to not assume that there is interaction between the different objects. When there is data that suggests such interaction then it will be much more interesting. However the use of statistics by Arp (Gutierez following suit) in this fashion is abysmal there is no reason that I find compelling to think these objects are not just opticaly aligned.

When they present better evidence then I will find it very interesting.
 
Last edited:
JEROME DA GNOME said:
I do not have a preference. I do not need one to discount a theory like BBT which is constantly adding new make-believe factors to correlate the data with the theory. What is it now according to the thoery, 99% of the universe is made up of Dark-Matter and Dark-Energy?
Click to expand...


:cool: I was just curious. Thanks.
 
It really doesn't matter much what one calls a phenomenon in physics. Some people still use "air waves" to speak of radio transmissions. "Ether" was a very useful concept until it was proven not to be necessary in a description of the universe. "Black hole", "dark matter", and "big bang" are nice images, and simply a means of providing for discussion and description of concepts that have not been completely understood. "Proving dark matter exists" is a loaded statement, perhaps it would be better to say "some sort of matter, unlike baryonic matter exists (and we have proof), let's call it 'dark matter' for the time being." So call it "X" stuff! Claiming that what has been observed has not really been observed is just silly.
 
JEROME DA GNOME said:
It is very revealing that you do not understand how redshift anomalies have relevance to this topic.
Click to expand...
It is?

Would you mind taking a few minutes to explain why?

I mean, as far as I know:

a) there has been no concise description of Plasma Cosmology (PC) given in this thread, by a PC proponent ... so without that, who can way what relevance 'redshift anomalies' might have to the topic at hand (or not)?

b) no one has attempted to draw a link (of any kind) between the research programme(s) of the authors of that paper and PC ... certainly no one in this thread has.

For the record, I also note that your earlier statement, about responding to the vast majority of posts, seems to be incompatible with your posting record ... at least as far as responding to my posts is concerned.

Also, it seems that you do not like to answer direct questions put to you, about the very ideas that you yourself have posted; why is that?
 
JEROME DA GNOME said:
Reality Check said:
NGC 7603 does not have a redshift anomoly. Pleaese quote the sentence in the paper thst states that the NGC 7603 galaxy itself has a redshift anomoly.
Click to expand...
:dl:
Click to expand...
I don't follow ...

Are you implying that, of course, the paper's authors do not claim NGC 7603 has a redshift anomaly?

Or that they do so claim, and that RC's reading comprehension is severely lacking?

I mean, it's pretty clear cut; you wrote the following words:
What do you think about the anomalies in the redshift observed in galaxies such as NGC 7603?
Click to expand...
But as anyone who can read this kind of paper can clearly see, the authors say nothing about any redshift anomalies in the galaxy named NGC 7603.

I must say I really do have a lot of difficulty understanding what you write, JEROME; perhaps English is not (one of) your native tongue(s)?
 
DeiRenDopa said:
I don't follow ...

Are you implying that, of course, the paper's authors do not claim NGC 7603 has a redshift anomaly?

Or that they do so claim, and that RC's reading comprehension is severely lacking?

I mean, it's pretty clear cut; you wrote the following words:But as anyone who can read this kind of paper can clearly see, the authors say nothing about any redshift anomalies in the galaxy named NGC 7603.

I must say I really do have a lot of difficulty understanding what you write, JEROME; perhaps English is not (one of) your native tongue(s)?
Click to expand...



Your interpertation is insane. Of course there is a redshift anomaly. If you can not understand this than you are truly blinded by faith and there is absolutely nothing that will cure this aliment.

Sorry. :o
 
Dancing David said:
I would say that there is little reason at this point to not assume that there is interaction between the different objects. When there is data that suggests such interaction then it will be much more interesting. However the use of statistics by Arp (Gutierez following suit) in this fashion is abysmal there is no reason that I find compelling to think these objects are not just opticaly aligned.
Click to expand...

Could you present a statistical analysis of the possibility for these four objects to be aligned such assuming that they are not part of the same whole?
 
JEROME DA GNOME said:
Your interpertation is insane. Of course there is a redshift anomaly. If you can not understand this than you are truly blinded by faith and there is absolutely nothing that will cure this aliment.

Sorry. :o
Click to expand...

It's a completely fair question. Which redshifts are anamolous? How does this contradict the current theory and what does the authors propose as a solution to the anamolies?

I mean, this seems like a reasonable request. Afterall, you are convinced by their findings that it disproves BBT, I'd like to know what convinced you.
 
JEROME DA GNOME said:
DeiRenDopa said:
I don't follow ...

Are you implying that, of course, the paper's authors do not claim NGC 7603 has a redshift anomaly?

Or that they do so claim, and that RC's reading comprehension is severely lacking?

I mean, it's pretty clear cut; you wrote the following words:
What do you think about the anomalies in the redshift observed in galaxies such as NGC 7603?
Click to expand...
But as anyone who can read this kind of paper can clearly see, the authors say nothing about any redshift anomalies in the galaxy named NGC 7603.

I must say I really do have a lot of difficulty understanding what you write, JEROME; perhaps English is not (one of) your native tongue(s)?
Click to expand...
Your interpertation is insane. Of course there is a redshift anomaly.
Click to expand...
.
First, thank you for taking the time to respond to my post.

Second, would you please extend me the courtesy of responding to all the other posts I wrote (which, to date, you have not responded to)?

Third, if this is how you interpret the paper, concerning the redshift of NGC 7603, then I agree that one of us may well have an "insane" interpretation.

However, as I intend to show in a subsequent post, that "insane" interpretation is surely yours ... if only because even the authors of that paper do not consider the observed redshift of NGC 7603 to be anomalous.

Perhaps the explanation for the apparent mis-communication is clear? Maybe it's due to your misunderstanding of what the paper actually says?

If you are prepared to state that you are willing to go through that paper, sentence by sentence (if necessary), I am willing to take the time to show you how the authors of that paper are clear about the redshift of NGC 7603 not being anomalous.

If you are not prepared to so state, I have no interest in continuing this discussion (and shall regard you as a troll, and treat you accordingly).
.
If you can not understand this than you are truly blinded by faith and there is absolutely nothing that will cure this aliment.
Click to expand...
.
I read the words, but do not understand the meaning; would you be kind enough to elaborate please?

Specifically, what is the "faith" that you consider I am "blinded by"?
.
Sorry. :o
Click to expand...
Me too.

Sadly, I think the objective evidence is all but overwhelming that you are, like Zeuzzz, merely a troll.

I had hoped that there was something interesting in your railing, and (as someone else said) passionate argumentation, something that pointed to a possibly fruitful area of research that, somehow, just about every astronomer (astrophysicist, cosmologist, even plain physicist) for the last century or so had overlooked. The chances that this was so were always very slim, but now (it seems) non-existent.
 
JEROME DA GNOME said:
DeiRenDopa said:
Would you mind taking a few minutes to explain why?
Click to expand...
That would be because if the redshift does not denote time and distance than a large part of the foundation of our current understanding of the universe is incorrect.

:mgbanghead
Click to expand...
Indeed.

However, what does that have to do with Plasma Cosmology (the explicit topic of this thread)?

Perhaps you are applying the logic of false dichotomy (something like: IF BBT is wrong, THEN Plasma Cosmology MUST BE RIGHT!!!!!!!!)?

Or am I missing something?

Here's the full context, just so that we don't lose sight of it (I've added bold, and [some editorial comments]):
DeiRenDopa said:
JEROME DA GNOME said:
It is very revealing that you do not understand how redshift anomalies have relevance to this topic ['this topic' being Plasma Cosmology].
Click to expand...
It is?

Would you mind taking a few minutes to explain why? [how 'redshift anomalies' are relevant to Plasma Cosmology]

I mean, as far as I know:

a) there has been no concise description of Plasma Cosmology (PC) given in this thread, by a PC proponent ... so without that, who can way what relevance 'redshift anomalies' might have to the topic at hand (or not)?

b) no one has attempted to draw a link (of any kind) between the research programme(s) of the authors of that paper and PC ... certainly no one in this thread has.

For the record, I also note that your earlier statement, about responding to the vast majority of posts, seems to be incompatible with your posting record ... at least as far as responding to my posts is concerned.

Also, it seems that you do not like to answer direct questions put to you, about the very ideas that you yourself have posted; why is that?
Click to expand...
 
DeiRenDopa said:
Perhaps you are applying the logic of false dichotomy (something like: IF BBT is wrong, THEN Plasma Cosmology MUST BE RIGHT!!!!!!!!)?
Click to expand...


You mean the Plasma woosters are using a false dichotomy? Say it isn't so... :rolleyes:

The logic I'm seeing displayed here by the anti-BBT, pro-Plasma woosters is very similar to that displayed by ID-creationists when they try to tear down evolution.

Jerome, this is pretty basic stuff, and sadly you appear to be unable to grasp the concept (much like creationists refuse to or cannot grasp it): poking holes in someone else's theory in no way, shape or form does anything to advance your own theory.

Especially when your sad attempts to poke holes (in this case, in BBT) are so lacking.
 
JEROME DA GNOME said:
Could you present a statistical analysis of the possibility for these four objects to be aligned such assuming that they are not part of the same whole?
Click to expand...
That was their burden and responsibilty Jerome, not mine or anybody elses. they are claiming experiment and observation, but they are the ones who neglected the control group. So they are in error and at fault. No where else but in woo land do people ask other people to run the control group when they claim association.



They use a limited sample that is prone to sample error and sample bias. They use no control groups for representative samples. Therefore they are asserting an association or correlation when it could be just from random placement or 'noise'.

As I said Jerome, there is no evidence of interaction between the objects.

There are plenty of galaxies and plenty of QSOs, random [placement does not mean evenly distributed, it means random. And until a base line level of association is found, no meaningful correlation can be claimed.

Arp and Gutierez would be scorned for lack of control and representative sampling in any field that relies on correlation. And in fact they are not following what is standard protocol in census and representative sampling. (Or in astrophysics and astronomy) they are using a posteriori reasoning, which is an error. They would be laughed out of an epidemiological, social science or survey group for claiming a correlation but having done nothing to show it rises above noise level of occurrence.

If they had also sampled random points on the shy, random normative galaxies and could show that the level of association rose above one standard deviation, and better if two, and then they would have something.

But there paper would most likely not have been published in other fields.

They are the ones making the claim, but it is odd that they did not do the control research. That is a bad protocol and procedure. It would be like claiming you found an incidence of 1% occurrence of schizophrenia, without doing any research to find out what the 'normative' occurrence of schizophrenia is.

The use of a posteriori statistics is something that psychics and other scam artists use, it is shameful.

The burden is on NO NONR BUT THEM, this is science and they failed to do the control group, so they are the ones at fault. The burden is not on any one but them to show a control group.

How many scientists don't use controls, how many scientists ask other people to do the controls for them?

In fact here is a thread dedicated to this idea, in it many common uses of statitics are discussed and some very bad aposteriori statitics are demonstrated.

Arp and Gutierez can not claim association, they have no baseline or control groups, they would be laughed out of most fields that use statistics.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=107779

I really thought you were smarter than to ask that question jerome, because it oints out exactly why Arp is in wooville, when he could be in science. Might as well be the ganzfeld stuff, he is a great astronomer but a terrible user of staticts.
 
Last edited:
DeiRenDopa said:
Indeed.

However, what does that have to do with Plasma Cosmology (the explicit topic of this thread)?

Perhaps you are applying the logic of false dichotomy (something like: IF BBT is wrong, THEN Plasma Cosmology MUST BE RIGHT!!!!!!!!)?

Or am I missing something?

Here's the full context, just so that we don't lose sight of it (I've added bold, and [some editorial comments]):
Click to expand...


Sadly I begin to feel that Jerome is showing some tendencies which suprise me, doubting dark energy or dark matter , I understand, or black holes. But not knowing the difference between controls and no controls is shocking.
 
Zeuzzz has yet to offer us any reason to invest any time in investigating 'Plasma Cosmology'.

Until he does so, I won't waste another moment of my life on the stuff.

I'm not concerned about missing anything.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom