Plasma Cosmology - Woo or not

Zeuzzz · May 5, 2008

Quite frankly, I expected better than this. I return here after a few days to see what people have been saying, and not one person commented on my comment at the top of this page. Maybe because it was irrefutable information? about the often wrong quoted history about the CMB and the "predictions" that lead to acceptance of the "Big Bang" fairly tale? So it will just get added to the long list of ignored posts. Sigh.

And invalidating aspects of the Big Bang fairy tale does add credence to the basic premise of plasma cosmology, as the reasons always put forward to "refute" plasma cosmology are nearly always Big Bang material, so it works both ways. You cant use the Big Bang to falsify plasma cosmology, and then shout "false dichotomy" when we do it in return!

Lets see instead the reaction that my previous post provoked, a concrete scientific claim and historical context was put forward, and the reaction was as follows;

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)?

That comment really progressed the discussion DRD. Well done.

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.

Another brillant contribution! really progressed the discussion! well done.

MattusMaximus said:
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.

Frantic attempts to link plasma cosmology to creationists and ID'ers, whilst staunchly defending the biggest event of creation in history! The utter irony.

Complexity said:
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.

Hows about the post I wrote at the top of the page that you posted this very comment on? the one that no-one responded to? I'm not holding my breath. I wasn't expecting anything better from you, Complexity.

Corsair 115 said:
So you're saying Einstein, Hawking, Susskind, etc., are all wrong?

Shock! Horror! Had that possibility never occured to you? or is the faith that you put into authority figures such as them so blinding you are unable to grasp this idea at all? Blatent Argument from authority. I had expected better here.

Einstein was wrong about a great many things for example, so having the opinion that modern scientists are immune from making mistakes would be a ludicrous position to take.

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?

Why all the shouting?

seems as if some people are getting angry. Surely, addressing the material that has proked a response such as this would be far better way to release this?

And yes, you do seem to missing something, like my post; http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3674297&postcount=42 that you ignored.

Well, I think that pretty much sums up the responce to my post; http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3674297&postcount=42 , unless i have missed the responce to it, in which case, someone please point it out.

I'm done from this forum for now. I can see that no matter what i post it will either be directly ignored, or just recieve a host of indirect angry responses. Theres no point me just adding the occasional daily comment I planned to if I dont have the time to defend my position from all the personal attacks that follow. Your tactics just reveal your true colors. The ony person who has remained reasonably civil is Dancing david, and possibly a few others. Over And Out.

Reality Check · May 5, 2008

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

No. I was so impressed that I have the paper on my PC and have read it more then once. How many times have you read it?

You have this quote:

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;
...
With a link to this 1998 paper
The contribution of brown dwarfs to the local mass budget of the Galaxy

Where does the quote come from?

The observation is of the separation of a large amount of non-luminous matter from the luminous of the 1E0657−558 galactic cluster. Try reading the second papragraph in the introduction:

Given sufficient time, galaxies (whose stellar component makes up ∼ 1 − 2% of the mass (Kochanek et al. 2003) under the assumption of Newtonian gravity), plasma (∼ 5 − 15% of the mass (Allen et al. 2002; Vikhlinin et al. 2006)), and any dark matter in a typical cluster acquire similar, centrally-symmetric spatial distributions tracing the common gravitational potential. However, during a merger of two clusters, galaxies behave as collisionless particles, while the fluid-like X-ray emitting intracluster plasma experiences ram pressure. Therefore, in the course of a cluster collision, galaxies spatially decouple from the plasma. We clearly see this effect in the unique cluster 1E0657−558 (Tucker et al. 1998).

If you have a mechanism that can separate just the brown dwarfs, etc. from the galaxies then I suggest that inform the authors.

The Atheist · May 5, 2008

Zeuzzz said:
Quite frankly, I expected better than this.

Why?

You seem a lot like John Hewitt, who came in here with a different take on evolution and was promptly labelled a "creationist/IDer". (which was completely wrong in his case also) John posted here just as John Hewitt, if you want to check out his reception, start at his first post and work forward - didn't take long.

I correspond with John and find alternatives fascinating. I'm far too ignorant to ever form an opinion on DM/DE or PC, but you make a good case and can back it up with substantial scientific opinion.

I personally like to see alternative, non-supernatural explanations for things we don't fully understand - right or wrong, at least you're making the opposition do their homework.

Will CERN's results (if any) be able to confirm or detract from your hypothesis?

Zeuzzz said:
I return here after a few days to see what people have been saying, and not one person commented on my comment at the top of this page. Maybe because it was irrefutable information? about the often wrong quoted history about the CMB and the "predictions" that lead to acceptance of the "Big Bang" fairly tale? So it will just get added to the long list of ignored posts. Sigh.

Hey, I'll take the Fifth on that - I only haven't asked or answered anything so as not to make a complete arse of myself.

Zeuzzz said:
And invalidating aspects of the Big Bang fairy tale does add credence to the basic premise of plasma cosmology, as the reasons always put forward to "refute" plasma cosmology are nearly always Big Bang material, so it works both ways. You cant use the Big Bang to falsify plasma cosmology, and then shout "false dichotomy" when we do it in return!

Now, there might be a little pot/kettle going on there. The Big Bang "fairy tale"? If you want people to play nice, maybe showing a little respect for a scientific theory which has largely held water for a quarter of a century plus.

Zeuzzz said:
I'm done from this forum for now. I can see that no matter what i post it will either be directly ignored, or just recieve a host of indirect angry responses. Theres no point me just adding the occasional daily comment I planned to if I dont have the time to defend my position from all the personal attacks that follow. Your tactics just reveal your true colors. The ony person who has remained reasonably civil is Dancing david, and possibly a few others. Over And Out.

Well, this really is taking the soft option.

Here's a suggestion for you: rather than just walk away, if you believe in this stuff - as you clearly do - take a leaf out of John's book and ignore the snarky comments and stick to your plan of posting evidence. Maybe an "idiots' guide" would be helpful? During that, continue to interact with those posters who you feel are showing you the respect you're due and see how we go.

Your choice.

Reality Check · May 5, 2008

Zeuzzz said:
Quite frankly, I expected better than this. I return here after a few days to see what people have been saying, and not one person commented on my comment at the top of this page.

See my last posting about your posting.

Zeuzzz said:
Maybe because it was irrefutable information? about the often wrong quoted history about the CMB and the "predictions" that lead to acceptance of the "Big Bang" fairly tale? So it will just get added to the long list of ignored posts. Sigh.

I agree that the CMB is not just a prediction of the BBT but that is not the topic of this thread.

Zeuzzz said:
And invalidating aspects of the Big Bang fairy tale does add credence to the basic premise of plasma cosmology, as the reasons always put forward to "refute" plasma cosmology are nearly always Big Bang material, so it works both ways. You cant use the Big Bang to falsify plasma cosmology, and then shout "false dichotomy" when we do it in return!

Actually you are wrong about false dichotomy. "Invalidating aspects of the Big Bang fairy tale" does not add credence to the basic premise of plasma cosmology. What it does is invalidate are aspects of BBT. That is all. It may add credence to other theories but not specifically PC.
Likewise "invalidating aspects of the Plasma Cosmology fairy tale" is not support for BBT.

Now back to the topic which is "Plasma Cosmology - Woo or not".

How important is Peratt's plasma model of galaxy formation to PC?
Can you tell us why we do not see plasma filaments extending from all galaxies?
I was under the impression that large currents in plasmas produce X-ray radiation and so they would be obvious in surveys such as the Chandra X-ray Observatory.

sol invictus · May 5, 2008

The Atheist said:
Here's a suggestion for you: rather than just walk away, if you believe in this stuff - as you clearly do - take a leaf out of John's book and ignore the snarky comments and stick to your plan of posting evidence. Maybe an "idiots' guide" would be helpful? During that, continue to interact with those posters who you feel are showing you the respect you're due and see how we go.

The trouble is that there is no such thing as plasma cosmology. There is a set of ideas, ranging from the totally ridiculous (the sun is powered by electricity) to the merely stupid (flat galactic rotation curves can be explained by electromagnetic forces) to phenomena not fully understood by anyone (solar flares) to the totally mundane (most matter in the universe is plasma).

Every single concrete idea which has been put forward - of which there have not been many - has either been debunked or turns out to be consistent with mainstream astrophysics. After the fact, Zeuzzz has then declared that those ideas weren't PC after all. Every attempt to get him to produce a concrete or quantitative prediction of PC has failed, largely I think because he recognizes that it will probably be shown false in short order, leaving him with few options.

So instead he continues making vague statements about PC, and spends most of his posts attacking aspects of the standard cosmological model (relying on the logic of false dichotomy: if the standard theory is wrong mine must be right - even though I don't have one).

He runs away whenever he gets too thoroughly trapped. For example we had a long discussion on magnetic reconnection - a standard and well understood phenomenon which he claimed violated Maxwell's equations. Since this was an extremely clear example, I decided that it would make a good test. If Zeuzzz couldn't learn or admit he was wrong about that, he never would about anything and there wasn't much point in conversation. After months of being bludgeoned with irrefutable experimental, theoretical, and numerical evidence, he had totally reversed his position - while denying he had changed at all. When confronted with proof in the form of his own old posts (internet fora are nice that way) he ran away, and has only been back rarely since.

Dancing David · May 5, 2008

joobz said:
spelling schmelling

Speeling schmeeling!

Dancing David · May 5, 2008

Zeuzzz said:
Quite frankly, I expected better than this. I return here after a few days to see what people have been saying, and not one person commented on my comment at the top of this page. Maybe because it was irrefutable information? about the often wrong quoted history about the CMB and the "predictions" that lead to acceptance of the "Big Bang" fairly tale? So it will just get added to the long list of ignored posts. Sigh.

.

You are just as bad if not worse than BAC, I have been slowly reading through the sources you cited and then you come back and play the skanky sturmptet, you don't care that some people are reading and responding to your sources. You are just here to show off your body and try to start a fight, figures. :sigh:

Noticable in the Perrat articles, continued citation of obe study, suggestions of CMB that are currently inaccurate, bad Arp statitics, assertion without justification that toy models scale to galactic theories. there is some good stuff, but these are the galring holes in Perrat's articles.

So i will continue to read your sources and then get to whatever your point was, meanwhile you can continue your pissing contest.

So the fact that Perrat made two predictions in his fairy tale that were unsupported means what?

DeiRenDopa · May 5, 2008

Zeuzzz said:
Quite frankly, I expected better than this. I return here after a few days to see what people have been saying, and not one person commented on my comment at the top of this page. Maybe because it was irrefutable information?

Um, ... er, ...

In a thread devoted to Plasma Cosmology (PC) (yes, I'm shouting, in the (vain?) hope you will pay attention), what does Burbidge's (personal) article have to do with PC?

If you won't take the time and trouble (in this thread) to say what you think PC actually is, and if (as others have pointed out) every time you got close to saying what it is (in other threads) you changed your tune, went off at tangents, etc, then what is it that we can actually discuss?
.

about the often wrong quoted history about the CMB and the "predictions" that lead to acceptance of the "Big Bang" fairly tale?

.
The history is interesting ... but it tells us little about how well the actual observations match one theory or another, and surely this is the more important thing to examine?

Further, even if Burbidge (or some other author) has a paper convincingly showing that the space density of starlight, averaged over a large enough volume, is equivalent to a ~3K blackbody, so what?

Unless and until you explicitly tie such a thing to Plasma Cosmology, what's the point of discussing it (in this thread)?
.

So it will just get added to the long list of ignored posts. Sigh.

And invalidating aspects of the Big Bang fairy tale does add credence to the basic premise of plasma cosmology, as the reasons always put forward to "refute" plasma cosmology are nearly always Big Bang material, so it works both ways. You cant use the Big Bang to falsify plasma cosmology, and then shout "false dichotomy" when we do it in return!

Huh?

I wasn't aware that anyone, in this thread, had put forward any reasons 'to "refute" plasma cosmology', much less ones that were based solely on 'Big Bang material' ... would you (or any other reader) be kind enough to point to posts which contain such reasons?
.

Lets see instead the reaction that my previous post provoked, a concrete scientific claim and historical context was put forward,

... snip ...

Maybe; however, it had no connection to Plasma Cosmology, either explicit or implicit.

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?

Click to expand...

Why all the shouting? seems as if some people are getting angry. Surely, addressing the material that has proked a response such as this would be far better way to release this?

Quite.

So, what's the connection between what you posted (in post#42) and Plasma Cosmology?

So, what's the connection between what you posted (in post#42) and Plasma Cosmology?

So, what's the connection between what you posted (in post#42) and Plasma Cosmology?

So, what's the connection between what you posted (in post#42) and Plasma Cosmology?

I seem to have missed that ...

And yes, you do seem to missing something, like my post; http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3674297&postcount=42 that you ignored.

Well, I think that pretty much sums up the responce to my post; http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3674297&postcount=42 , unless i have missed the responce to it, in which case, someone please point it out.

I can't speak for anyone else, but ...

The reasons I ignored it were two: I was busy responding to other posts, and was going to get around to yours later; and your post seemed, to me, to have nothing to do with the explicit topic of this thread ... which is, in case you missed it, Plasma Cosmology.

Oh, and I should add that I find it rather odd that you say you're busy, yet have time to write posts that clearly required some time spent on collecting source material ... all the while ignoring all the other 'open items' that have followed from your earlier posts, both in this thread and (many) others.

I'm done from this forum for now. I can see that no matter what i post it will either be directly ignored, or just recieve a host of indirect angry responses. Theres no point me just adding the occasional daily comment I planned to if I dont have the time to defend my position

Huh?

I wasn't aware that you had a 'position' at all! At least, not one that concerns a concisely described alternative cosmology called 'Plasma Cosmology', much less any such based on standard scientific methods and approaches.

For the record, again, I think your 'occasional daily comment' have been almost entirely seagull woo spam.

from all the personal attacks that follow. Your tactics just reveal your true colors. The ony person who has remained reasonably civil is Dancing david, and possibly a few others. Over And Out.

Click to expand...

Bye!

And good luck with those physics exams ...

robinson · May 5, 2008

Zeuzzz said:
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” (Hall, 2005). 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, Jahreiss, and Flynn, 2006).

http://www.ctr4process.org/programs/LSI/2006-Cosmology/EastmanT - Cosmic Agnosticism.pdf

There is the correct link to the source of the quote.

Corsair 115 · May 5, 2008

Zeuzzz said:
Shock! Horror! Had that possibility never occured to you? or is the faith that you put into authority figures such as them so blinding you are unable to grasp this idea at all? Blatent Argument from authority. I had expected better here.

Perhaps you can explain why those individuals, and many others, have not changed their minds.

Might it be because there is little convincing evidence to make them change their minds? Or are you simply writing off anyone who accepts the current dominant theories of cosmology as rigid ideologues who reject anything which contradicts their theories?

MattusMaximus · May 5, 2008

JEROME DA GNOME said:
It is very revealing that you do not understand how redshift anomalies have relevance to this topic.

Has Jerome even defined what he means by "redshift anomaly"?

When confronted with such inanity as espoused here where claims are made but no definitions are provided, I'm reminded of Ben Stein's "Expelled", where he and the other creationists spend 90 minutes blathering on about "Darwinism" and "Intelligent Design" but never even provide definition for those terms.

Such mental masturbation may be interesting to watch, but it doesn't really accomplish anything beyond muddying the intellectual waters.

MattusMaximus · May 5, 2008

Corsair 115 said:
Perhaps you can explain why those individuals, and many others, have not changed their minds.

Corsair, the answer is so simple...

MattusMaximus · May 5, 2008

Zeuzzz said:
Frantic attempts to link plasma cosmology to creationists and ID'ers, whilst staunchly defending the biggest event of creation in history! The utter irony.

And once again Zeuzzz misses the point. I was, of course, not calling him and the other Plasma woosters ID-creationists; I was merely making a comparison to the similarities between the tactics used by both Plasma woosters and ID-creationists. In fact, I'm beginning to see similar tactics used in the promotion of a whole host of various pseudo-sciences.

I'm done from this forum for now. I can see that no matter what i post it will either be directly ignored, or just recieve a host of indirect angry responses. Theres no point me just adding the occasional daily comment I planned to if I dont have the time to defend my position from all the personal attacks that follow. Your tactics just reveal your true colors. The ony person who has remained reasonably civil is Dancing david, and possibly a few others. Over And Out.

And yet he still won't answer Dancing David's questions. Hmmm...

Wow, with such a thin skin, it is obvious that Zeuzzz wouldn't last two seconds in a real scientific forum. This is just some skeptic Internet blog and he can't handle the heat.

Good riddance.

Tubbythin · May 5, 2008

Zeuzzz said:
Quite frankly, I expected better than this. I return here after a few days to see what people have been saying, and not one person commented on my comment at the top of this page. Maybe because it was irrefutable information? about the often wrong quoted history about the CMB and the "predictions" that lead to acceptance of the "Big Bang" fairly tale? So it will just get added to the long list of ignored posts. Sigh.

Talking about getting the history of the CMB wrong, care to comment on this?

And invalidating aspects of the Big Bang fairy tale

Calling it a fairy tale makes you sound like a troll. I suggest you cease.

does add credence to the basic premise of plasma cosmology, as the reasons always put forward to "refute" plasma cosmology are nearly always Big Bang material, so it works both ways. You cant use the Big Bang to falsify plasma cosmology, and then shout "false dichotomy" when we do it in return!

We don't. We use observational evidence. And btw the burden of proof is on you. If you want us to believe you are not just spouting woo then it is up to you to provide explanations of how your theory (whatever it really is) fits the observations and then give us testable predictions.

Frantic attempts to link plasma cosmology to creationists and ID'ers,

You don't think you sound like an IDer sometimes? Not even when you say things like this?

whilst staunchly defending the biggest event of creation in history! The utter irony.

Either there was a beginning or there wasn't. The evidence has been put forward that there was. If you object then give us the counter evidence.

Blatent Argument from authority. I had expected better here.

Speaking of irony. Or maybe its just rank hippocrasy.

The Atheist · May 5, 2008

sol invictus said:
When confronted with proof in the form of his own old posts (internet fora are nice that way) he ran away, and has only been back rarely since.

That's what I was getting at - if he has something, leaving in a huff isn't going to convince anyone. If it's happened before as well, then it doesn't look too good.

JEROME DA GNOME · May 5, 2008

MattusMaximus said:
Has Jerome even defined what he means by "redshift anomaly"?

If I present the data which evidences a redshift anomaly with NGC 7603 will you admit that redshift is not an accurate representation of time and distance?

Corsair 115 · May 5, 2008

JEROME DA GNOME said:
If I present the data which evidences a redshift anomaly with NGC 7603 will you admit that redshift is not an accurate representation of time and distance?

How much data? One example of a problem in one study? Or a whole series of peer-reviewed studies indicating a great many anomalies?

Tubbythin · May 6, 2008

JEROME DA GNOME said:
If I present the data which evidences a redshift anomaly with NGC 7603 will you admit that redshift is not an accurate representation of time and distance?

If by present you mean discuss in your own words a number of independent measurements presented in a number of peer reviewed articles in mainstream physics journals illustrating results that clearly conflict with the Big Bang model of the Universe
AND
You can aknowledge the strengths and limitations of the data, the errors involved and, where appropriate, can perform detailed (correct) statistical analysis.
AND
If you can show a firm grasp of the physics involved (including where necessary special and general relativity, particle and nuclear physics, quantum mechanics, electromagnetism, astronomy, cosmology, thermodynamics and statistical mechanics)
AND
If you will allow your presentation to be interrogated by anyone on the board and can succesfully defend your presentation from the interrogation.
Then the answer is yes.

If present means link to a single article and say BBT is clearly wrong without giving any explanation like you did earlier then the answer is no, of course not.

Dancing David · May 6, 2008

JEROME DA GNOME said:
If I present the data which evidences a redshift anomaly with NGC 7603 will you admit that redshift is not an accurate representation of time and distance?

Only if I agree with the interpretation.

I do not agree with Arp's statitics in the least and a vague filament in alignment with a QSO, without any evidence that the QSO is interacting with the filament, means about as much as a finger pointing at the moon. Just because Saturn is occluded by the moon does not mean the moon touches Saturn.

You present, then each may decide, but please don't use Poisson distributions and aposteriori statistics.

MattusMaximus · May 6, 2008

JEROME DA GNOME said:
If I present the data which evidences a redshift anomaly with NGC 7603 will you admit that redshift is not an accurate representation of time and distance?

Will you first provide a specific definition of what you mean by "redshift anomaly"?

No offense, but I really want to pin you down on this first, so as to avoid any potential goalpost moving in the future on this point.

DeiRenDopa · May 6, 2008

JEROME DA GNOME said:
If I present the data which evidences a redshift anomaly with NGC 7603 will you admit that redshift is not an accurate representation of time and distance?

Huh?

What is the connection between a "redshift anomaly", any redshift anomaly, and Plasma Cosmology?

In which widely cited, landmark Plasma Cosmology work is "redshift anomaly" presented and discussed?

In what papers, or other material, have M. López-Corredoira and C.M. Gutiérrez explained how "redshift anomaly" and Plasma Cosmology are related?

Where can one read more about NGC 7603 and Plasma Cosmology?

How do the fathers (there are no mothers, right?) of Plasma Cosmology describe the underlying physical mechanisms (a.k.a. processes) which give rise to redshifts, including "redshift anomalies"? In what papers, conference proceedings, books, etc do they provide the details?

robinson · May 6, 2008

Worst thread ever.

DeiRenDopa · May 6, 2008

robinson said:
Worst thread ever.

Why do you say that?

I think this is a particularly good thread!

It has clearly shown just how weak this so-called alternative ("Plasma Cosmology") is, at least in terms of there being some clearly defined set of principles, approaches, models, theories, etc about cosmology.

It has also shown, with great clarity, how difficult the JREF forum's self-styled, physics trained, Plasma Cosmology (PC) fan (Zeuzzz) has found it to address simple, straight questions about the very topic he is on record, in many threads, as being so fervent about.

The promise of this thread is even greater. For example, if, some time in the future, a new ardent proponent of PC appears on the scene, the (then) old-hands can simply revive this thread, or start another in a similar vein.

That's quite an achievement for a thread with such a short life (so far), and so few posts (so far), don't you think?

Dancing David · May 6, 2008

robinson said:
Worst thread ever.

How is the Android's Dungeon?

Zeuzzz · May 7, 2008

DeiRenDopa said:
The promise of this thread is even greater. For example, if, some time in the future, a new ardent proponent of PC appears on the scene, the (then) old-hands can simply revive this thread, or start another in a similar vein.

I think I'll take the last option. This thread has already descended into the same pointless tit for tat argument that the discussion on magnetic reconnection ended in, with one side just ignoring what the other was saying, and both claiming they were right. The posts end up being a reaction to what has been said previously, as opposed to resolving the dispute. And my last post wasn't the most helpful, I've sobered up now

not the best post to leave my position up in the air about....

And (not surprisingly) no-one seems to have noticed the paper that robinson quoted, which is very interesting and worth a read to anyone trying to assess the merits of alternative cosmologies beyond the Big Bang notion, and the possible future role of EM forces and plasma dynamics in large scale structures in the cosmos. It gives a good overview of the how philosophy enters the realm of cosmology, the role of metaphysics in modern cosmology, the role of process philosophy and heirarchical cosmology, and what the benefits of the different approaches can hope to achieve in cosmology , http://www.ctr4process.org/programs/LSI/2006-Cosmology/EastmanT - Cosmic Agnosticism.pdf

The New Physics and the Process View of Nature.

With continuing progress in new observation and experiments, a really “new” physics is steadily emerging that is less dependent on the unstated substance metaphysics that infects the “standard view of nature,” which has been dominant throughout most of the 20th century [Eastman, 2006b].
For example, it is ironic that the rigor of controlled laboratory experiments and constant, evolving interplay between theory and experiment has led particle physics to seeing the world not just as “particles,” but as a plenum of events; thus, both “particles” and events.

The process-oriented scholarly community and many scientists as well have shown the explanatory power of a process view of nature in Process Studies and other journals and books that highlight the interface of process thought and modern science [see compilation in Eastman and Keeton, 2004a,b].

Ours is a multiply-interconnected, processual universe in which any finite actuality is necessarily constituted by some unifying response to the plenum of events constituting its local world. [.....]

And I figured that plasma cosmology can probably be best summed up by this statement, for all the people that seem unable to grasp the main idea behind PC;

"The phenomena that the Big Bang seeks to explain with a mysterious ancient catacylsm, plasma theories attribute to electrical and magnetic processes occurring in the universe today."

And this uncensored version of the wikipedia page on plasma cosmology gives a brief overview;

Overview

Plasma cosmology posits that the most important feature of the universe is that the matter it contains is composed almost entirely of astrophysical plasma. The state of matter known as plasma is an electrically-conductive collection of charged particles, possibly together with neutral particles or dust, that exhibits collective behavior and that responds as a whole to electromagnetic forces. The charged particles are usually ions and electrons resulting from heating a gas. Stars and the interstellar medium are composed of plasma of different densities. Plasma physics is uncontroversially accepted to play an important role in many astrophysical phenomena.

The basic assumptions of plasma cosmology which differ from standard cosmology are:

1. Since the universe is nearly all plasma, electromagnetic forces are equal in importance with gravitation on all scales.[10].

2. An origin in time for the universe is rejected,[11] due to causality arguments and rejection of ex nihilo models as a stealth form of creationism.[12]

3. Since every part of the universe we observe is evolving, it assumes that the universe itself is evolving as well, though a scalar expansion as predicted from the FRW metric is not accepted as part of this evolution (see static universe).

Plasma cosmology advocates emphasize the links between physical processes observable in laboratories on Earth and those that govern the cosmos; as many cosmological processes as possible are explained by the behavior of a plasma in the laboratory.[13] Proponents contrast this with the big bang theory which has over the course of its existence required the introduction of such features as inflation, dark matter and dark energy that have not been detectable yet in laboratory experiments.[14]

And some of these publications may add some good further reading on the plasma scale invariants in the universe, from laboratory to cosmos (list from various links at http://plasmas.org/space-astrophys.htm#research);

*Similarity of structuring in the range 10-5 cm to 10^23 cm hints at a baryonic cold dark skeleton of the Universe - American Physical Society, 44th Annual Meeting of the Division of Plasma, 2002

*Magnetic vortex filaments, universal scale invariants, and the fundamental constants Lerner, Eric J. IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science, vol. PS-14, Dec. 1986, p. 690-702.

The observed scale invariances in the universe are shown to support the idea that force-free magnetic vortex filaments have been central to the evolution of the universe and in the formation of superclusters, clusters, galaxies, and stars. The existence of a maximal size for vortex filaments that is comparable with that of the observable universe is demonstrated, eliminating the theoretical need for missing mass, and providing an alternative cosmology to that of the Big Bang. Invariants between microscopic and cosmological scales are proposed, leading to the derivation of a simple analytical expression for the fundamental constants, and suggesting the existence of vortex phenomena on the particle level.[...]

Astronomical bodies, ranging from clusters of galaxies down to stars, share an approximately constant parameter: J/M², where J is the angular momentum, and M is mass. Many researchers have debated the significance of this relationship, with some claiming it to be of fundamental importance, and others denying any significance at all.

To date, no one has put forward a concrete hypothesis to explain why this parameter is roughly constant, or why this value is observed. This question can be reformulated by noting that for an object in gravitational equ[....]

*Evidences for and the models of self-similar skeletal structures in fusion devices, severe weather phenomena and space

*Force-free magnetic filaments and the cosmic background radiation

*Fractal Structures and the Large Scale Distribution of Galaxies

*Finite size effects on the galaxy number counts: evidence for fractal behavior up to the deepest scale - Physica A226 195–242 (1996).

*On the Fractal Nature of the Large-Scale Structure of the Universe

*Fractal universe. - Physica A, Vol. 280, No. 1 - 2, p. 125 - 130, 2000.

*Skeletal Structures in the Images of Cosmic Dust Clouds and Solar SystemPlanets - Plasma Science, IEEE Transactions on Volume 35, Issue 4, Aug. 2007

* Self-Similarity of Electric Currents Networking in a Broad Range of Length Scales: from Laboratory to Cosmic Plasmas - A. B. Kukushkin and V. A. Rantsev-Kartinov, Rev. Scientific Instr., 70, n.2, pp.1387-1391, 1999.

*Electrodynamic Aggregation of Nanodust as a Source of Long-Lived Filaments in Laboratory Electric Discharges and Space - Kukushkin, A.B. Plasma Science, IEEE Transactions on Volume 35, Issue 4, Aug. 2007.

*Observation of Skeletal Filamentary Structures in Plasma of a Fast Z-Pinch - American Physical Society, 44th Annual Meeting of the Division of Plasma, 2002

*Skeletal Structures in High-Current Electric Discharges: Observations, Hypotheses and Proof-of-Concept Studies - 29th EPS Conference on Plasma Phys. and Contr. Fusion Montreux, 17-21 June 2002

*Conceptual Problems of Fractal Cosmology - Astronomical and Astrophysical Transactions, vol. 19, Issue 3, pp.417-435, 2000.

The results of a high-resolution processing, based on techniques of fractal dimension analysis and called a method of multilevel dynamical contrasting [1], of numerous data from laboratory electric discharges (Z-pinch, plasma focus) and observations of cosmic plasmas (including available Hubble Space Telescope data) reveal high degree of self-similarity of plasma structuring in a very broad range of length scales. This covers about thirty orders of magnitude: from micrometer thickness of individual filaments in laboratory discharges to the structures in the universe which resemble networking of electric currents in laboratory plasmas.[.....]

**Principles of Magnetohydrodynamics: With Applications to Laboratory and Astrophysical Plasmas, Goedbloed and S. Poedts, Cambridge, 2004. [lecture notes]

So theres no need for the continual comments from Sol and people that "The trouble is that there is no such thing as plasma cosmology", when the exact definition of plasma cosmology has been put forward so many times now (see the bolded statement in this post [incase you missed it {again}]). I at least thought that you could accept that this type of approach exists, but I suppose that denying that it even exists in the first place makes it easier for you to deal with

. I'm sure that the pioneers of plasma cosmology and other contributors to this field such as Alfven, Peratt, Lerner, Birkeland, Verschuur, Fälthammar, Bruce, Langmuir, Dirac, Jansky, Arp, Burbidge, Grote Reber, Appleton, et al, would be amazed to find out that they have been working in a field that doesn't even exist for their entire lifetimes

This page sums up some ideas behind PC quite well;
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Plasma_cosmology&oldid=88919194

And this peer reviewed publication directly compares the two cosmologies:
http://bigbangneverhappened.org/p27.htm

If your going to read and critique any PC material, read both of them.

And, finally, i return to my end point;

Zeuzzz said:
I'm done from this forum for now. I can see that no matter what i post it will either be directly ignored, or just recieve a host of indirect angry responses. Theres no point me just adding the occasional daily comment I planned to if I dont have the time to defend my position from all the personal attacks that follow. Over And Out.

robinson · May 7, 2008

Thanks Zeuzzz. I don't really have time, nor the fortitude to read all those references. I have spent some time reading and watching videos about plasma physics, as well as plasma cosmology, both of which are fascinating fields of study.

A troll thread like this one isn't really about wanting to learn, it is about people who fear what they don't know, what they don't understand. It is the easy path, and I can't really blame anyone who simply can't imagine there is anything unknown about the Universe. Most people are like that.

They attack and mock anything they don't understand. It is a very old human condition. In this case, the more visible crackpots who try to put forth there crazy theories and beliefs, under the term "Plasma Cosmology", have poisoned the well for them.

Even if some amazing new evidence concerning plasma and star formation, some new hard data that is simply astounding, evidence that changes the very way we view Galaxies and stars, even such evidence as that, it won't matter to the close minded. They already think they know it all.

Or, if they do look at it, they will go back to the most nutjob parts of the worst crackpots, and try to talk about that instead.

It's sort of a waste of time. No new discoveries ever came about from a bunch of people having pointless arguments on the Internet.

So how important is it, really? I'm just glad when somebody points me towards something new and interesting, something I might have missed. Insulting trolls, desperate for attention, they are numerous and with out end.

Nobody cares.

But this plasma stuff, now that is some messed up science.

joobz · May 7, 2008

robinson said:
Thanks Zeuzzz. I don't really have time, nor the fortitude to read all those references. I have spent some time reading and watching videos about plasma physics, as well as plasma cosmology, both of which are fascinating fields of study.

A troll thread like this one isn't really about wanting to learn, it is about people who fear what they don't know, what they don't understand. It is the easy path, and I can't really blame anyone who simply can't imagine there is anything unknown about the Universe. Most people are like that.

They attack and mock anything they don't understand. It is a very old human condition. In this case, the more visible crackpots who try to put forth there crazy theories and beliefs, under the term "Plasma Cosmology", have poisoned the well for them.

Even if some amazing new evidence concerning plasma and star formation, some new hard data that is simply astounding, evidence that changes the very way we view Galaxies and stars, even such evidence as that, it won't matter to the close minded. They already think they know it all.

Or, if they do look at it, they will go back to the most nutjob parts of the worst crackpots, and try to talk about that instead.

It's sort of a waste of time. No new discoveries ever came about from a bunch of people having pointless arguments on the Internet.

So how important is it, really? I'm just glad when somebody points me towards something new and interesting, something I might have missed. Insulting trolls, desperate for attention, they are numerous and with out end.

Nobody cares.

But this plasma stuff, now that is some messed up science.

That's a lot of nice self-agrandizing language, but who are these "they" to whom you keep referring?

Dancing David · May 7, 2008

Wow, that was weird thanks for the double slam guys. You don't understand me so I am leaving is not much of an explanation. So Robinson, why not give us a capsule of what you think the open minded should be looking at?

The CMB doesn't look like it, nor does Perrat's galaxy model. The filamentary structure has some merit, especially in the early universe.

Complexity · May 7, 2008

Zeuzzz - There is so much interesting and real to learn, why waste your life with this crap?

joobz · May 7, 2008

Dancing David said:
Wow, that was weird thanks for the double slam guys. You don't understand me so I am leaving is not much of an explanation. So Robinson, why not give us a capsule of what you think the open minded should be looking at?

The CMB doesn't look like it, nor does Perrat's galaxy model. The filamentary structure has some merit, especially in the early universe.

I hope that you didn't think I was slamming you. I was simply responding to the bizzare post of robinson.

JEROME DA GNOME · May 7, 2008

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=76070&page=2

robinson said:
Thanks Zeuzzz. I don't really have time, nor the fortitude to read all those references. I have spent some time reading and watching videos about plasma physics, as well as plasma cosmology, both of which are fascinating fields of study.

A troll thread like this one isn't really about wanting to learn, it is about people who fear what they don't know, what they don't understand. It is the easy path, and I can't really blame anyone who simply can't imagine there is anything unknown about the Universe. Most people are like that.

They attack and mock anything they don't understand. It is a very old human condition. In this case, the more visible crackpots who try to put forth there crazy theories and beliefs, under the term "Plasma Cosmology", have poisoned the well for them.

Even if some amazing new evidence concerning plasma and star formation, some new hard data that is simply astounding, evidence that changes the very way we view Galaxies and stars, even such evidence as that, it won't matter to the close minded. They already think they know it all.

Or, if they do look at it, they will go back to the most nutjob parts of the worst crackpots, and try to talk about that instead.

It's sort of a waste of time. No new discoveries ever came about from a bunch of people having pointless arguments on the Internet.

So how important is it, really? I'm just glad when somebody points me towards something new and interesting, something I might have missed. Insulting trolls, desperate for attention, they are numerous and with out end.

Nobody cares.

But this plasma stuff, now that is some messed up science.

Corsair 115 · May 7, 2008

robinson said:
Worst thread ever.

If you really think that, then clearly you haven't perused some of the threads in the Conspiracy Theories forum...

robinson · May 7, 2008

I almost never read the CT forum. Oh sure, now and then I jump into a thread, but I don't actually read the thread, that way lies madness.

"Worst thread ever" should be obvious to Simpsons fans, as was noted above, I'm glad somebody got it. Everybody else is just shaking their heads going, "WTF? This is no way the worst thread ever. How could he say that?"

MattusMaximus · May 7, 2008

Yoo-hoo, Jerome...

MattusMaximus said:
Will you first provide a specific definition of what you mean by "redshift anomaly"?

No offense, but I really want to pin you down on this first, so as to avoid any potential goalpost moving in the future on this point.

Cuddles · May 7, 2008

Corsair 115 said:
If you really think that, then clearly you haven't perused some of the threads in the Conspiracy Theories forum...

The sad thing is, the plasma cosmology threads read exactly the same as most of the Conspiracy ones. There's an awful lot of handwaving and plenty of railing against the "official theory", but little to no actual quantitative calculations or data and a complete refusal to actually define what they're talking about in the first place.

I have no doubt there is plenty of interesting stuff that could turn up in these threads. There's an awful lot of stuff in astronomy and cosmology that we don't understand. But all I can see here is "The big bang is wrong so plasma cosmology must be right, but I'm not going to tell you what I think plasma cosmology actually is or what it predicts.".

Dancing David · May 7, 2008

joobz said:
I hope that you didn't think I was slamming you. I was simply responding to the bizzare post of robinson.

Gosh no, sorry.

I could have said that more carefully noble Knight of the Onion. Love that avatar.

DeiRenDopa · May 7, 2008

You've said goodbye twice now Zeuzzz, how many more times may we expect?

Taking the points in your lengthy post one by one ...

Zeuzzz said:
I think I'll take the last option. This thread has already descended into the same pointless tit for tat argument that the discussion on magnetic reconnection ended in, with one side just ignoring what the other was saying, and both claiming they were right. The posts end up being a reaction to what has been said previously, as opposed to resolving the dispute. And my last post wasn't the most helpful, I've sobered up now not the best post to leave my position up in the air about....

And (not surprisingly) no-one seems to have noticed the paper that robinson quoted, which is very interesting and worth a read to anyone trying to assess the merits of alternative cosmologies beyond the Big Bang notion,

Hmmm...

As philosophy, it may be interesting; as philosophy of science, it is good in many places; as an unbiased, accurate summary of the key points concerning "BB" and alternatives, as science, it is laughable.

Why? because it says essentially nothing about how well (or not) any of these 'alternative cosmologies' matches the relevant observations (and no, Burbidge does not introduce any such, in the 2006 paper Eastman cites).

and the possible future role of EM forces and plasma dynamics in large scale structures in the cosmos. It gives a good overview of the how philosophy enters the realm of cosmology, the role of metaphysics in modern cosmology, the role of process philosophy and heirarchical cosmology, and what the benefits of the different approaches can hope to achieve in cosmology , http://www.ctr4process.org/programs/LSI/2006-Cosmology/EastmanT - Cosmic Agnosticism.pdf

So thanks to you and robinson ...

Eastman does make a case for the existence of alternatives, in terms of cosmologies ... and it seems it's as I have been saying all along: proponents of "Plasma Cosmology" (PC) are (mostly implicitly) using approaches, methods, logic, etc that is different from that of contemporary cosmology (and astrophysics, and, no doubt, physics).

For example, the implicit use of the logic of false dichotomy (implicit for Eastman, explicit for many PC proponents); (implicitly) excluding much of PC from falsification (by not drawing up any lists of 'leading recognized problems of PC', for example); and (implicitly) removing a requirement for internal consistency.

And I figured that plasma cosmology can probably be best summed up by this statement, for all the people that seem unable to grasp the main idea behind PC;

"The phenomena that the Big Bang seeks to explain with a mysterious ancient catacylsm, plasma theories attribute to electrical and magnetic processes occurring in the universe today."

... snip ...

Great!

Now we can ask questions like the following, and we can expect that any proponent of PC worth his salt will be able to provide chapter and verse answers.

* what are five (say) different phenomena ("[t]he phenomena that the Big Bang seeks to explain")?

* where are the papers which show - quantitatively - that these (five) phenomena a match between observations and "electrical and magnetic processes occurring in the universe today"?

(there are, of course, a lot more questions, but those will do for now)

Perhaps, at last, the rest of Zeuzzz' post contains some answers?

(to be continued)

DeiRenDopa · May 7, 2008

OK, a couple of things about Eastman, quickly ...

First, in the body it's "(e.g., Fuchs, Jahreiss, and Flynn, 2006)", in the references it's "Fuchs, B., H. Jahreiss, and C. Flynn, 1998. Contribution of brown dwarfs to the local mass budget, Astron. Astrophys., Vol. 339." Not a biggie, you'd say, right? Well, you'd be wrong ... here's what Eastman says:

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” (Hall, 2005). 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, Jahreiss, and Flynn, 2006).

And here's the abstract to Fuchs, Jahreiss, and Flynn, 1998:

Based on the recent discoveries of free floating brown dwarfs we derive estimates of the local mass density of this population of objects. Mass density estimates from various surveys span the range 0.03 to 0.005 M_Sun/pc^3. These estimates are compared with the local mass densities of the other constituents of the galactic disk and, in particular, with the dynamically determined total local mass density. We argue that brown dwarfs might indeed contribute significantly to the local mass budget, but that a local mass density as high as 0.03 M_Sun/pc^3 as suggested by Ruiz et al. (1997) is rather unlikely.

If you don't know just how big a booboo Eastman makes here, then please join the JREF forum Non-baryonic cold dark matter ("CDM"), the observational evidence thread (hint: Eastman's booboo is so bad that it makes his credibility zero, for a serious discussion of the science of cosmology).

But wait! There's more!!

Eastman, in his "At the present time, leading recognized problems with BB are as follows:" list is this:

Direct experimental tests for “dark matter” have continued for twenty years without any definite conclusion (e.g., Freeman and McNamara, 2006).

"Freeman and McNamara, 2006"?

It's "Freeman, Ken, and Geoff McNamara, 2006. In Search of Dark Matter, Berlin: Springer-Verlag." ... at least he got that right.

However, it seems Eastman did not actually read this book! If he had, he'd not have made the Fuchs, Jahreiss, and Flynn, 1998 booboo, because Freeman and McNamara explain in considerable detail, and clarity, what the 'local mass density' is, how 'dark' baryonic matter (such as brown dwarfs) is taken account of, why there is essentially no non-baryonic DM locally, and why that is irrelevant (in terms of CDM universally ... or even in the MW halo).

Zeuzzz, if I may be so bold as to give you a suggestion? If you want to cite material like Eastman, which is essentially philosophical, do take the trouble to actually read it, critically. Then, if you still want to use it to bolster whatever point you think you are making, be extremely clear just what the scope of that point is. For example, you introduced it as follows (I added some bolding):

is very interesting and worth a read to anyone trying to assess the merits of alternative cosmologies beyond the Big Bang notion, and the possible future role of EM forces and plasma dynamics in large scale structures in the cosmos. It gives a good overview of the how philosophy enters the realm of cosmology, the role of metaphysics in modern cosmology, the role of process philosophy and heirarchical cosmology, and what the benefits of the different approaches can hope to achieve in cosmology

You omitted an extremely important caveat, namely that Eastman gets much of his astronomy, astrophysics, physics, and cosmology wrong ... many times (he is, it seems, also heavily biased in his selection of sources).

DeiRenDopa · May 7, 2008

(continued)

Zeuzzz said:
... snip ...

And this uncensored version of the wikipedia page on plasma cosmology gives a brief overview;

Overview

Plasma cosmology posits that the most important feature of the universe is that the matter it contains is composed almost entirely of astrophysical plasma. The state of matter known as plasma is an electrically-conductive collection of charged particles, possibly together with neutral particles or dust, that exhibits collective behavior and that responds as a whole to electromagnetic forces. The charged particles are usually ions and electrons resulting from heating a gas. Stars and the interstellar medium are composed of plasma of different densities. Plasma physics is uncontroversially accepted to play an important role in many astrophysical phenomena.

The basic assumptions of plasma cosmology which differ from standard cosmology are:

1. Since the universe is nearly all plasma, electromagnetic forces are equal in importance with gravitation on all scales.[10].

2. An origin in time for the universe is rejected,[11] due to causality arguments and rejection of ex nihilo models as a stealth form of creationism.[12]

3. Since every part of the universe we observe is evolving, it assumes that the universe itself is evolving as well, though a scalar expansion as predicted from the FRW metric is not accepted as part of this evolution (see static universe).

Plasma cosmology advocates emphasize the links between physical processes observable in laboratories on Earth and those that govern the cosmos; as many cosmological processes as possible are explained by the behavior of a plasma in the laboratory.[13] Proponents contrast this with the big bang theory which has over the course of its existence required the introduction of such features as inflation, dark matter and dark energy that have not been detectable yet in laboratory experiments.[14]

Click to expand...

... snip ...

so now we have something both concise and specific to work with, thank you Zeuzzz.

Unfortunately, for the PC cause, we have already covered almost all that material, in other threads.

Specifically, the most concrete example is rotation curves of spiral galaxies and the doing away for a need for CDM (it's the third reference in [14]) ... in this case, PC falls splat! on its face, both in terms of a viable alternative explanation and failing to address the bulk of the universe's CDM (hint: it's not in the halos of spiral galaxies, but elsewhere!). A minor failure is the (to date) non-observation of CIV (if Peratt et al. are correct, then CIV should have a very obvious signature, certainly one that should have turned up in radio astronomy observations, at least a decade ago).

Almost all the other cites are works by Alfvén, and many are at least partly philosophical. If any reader is interested in discussing any of these, in terms of the science (observation, theory, how well they match, etc), I'd be happy to participate.

Oh, and let's not omit a central feature of PC: plasma physics is a well-established, well-tested branch of physics. It has important applications in astrophysics (and space science). There is no controversy here. If all PC is is textbook plasma physics applied (successfully) to astronomical observations and astrophysics, we can all go home now.

DeiRenDopa · May 7, 2008

(continued)

Zeuzzz said:
... snip ...

And some of these publications may add some good further reading on the plasma scale invariants in the universe, from laboratory to cosmos (list from various links at http://plasmas.org/space-astrophys.htm#research);

*Similarity of structuring in the range 10-5 cm to 10^23 cm hints at a baryonic cold dark skeleton of the Universe - American Physical Society, 44th Annual Meeting of the Division of Plasma, 2002

*Magnetic vortex filaments, universal scale invariants, and the fundamental constants Lerner, Eric J. IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science, vol. PS-14, Dec. 1986, p. 690-702.

*Evidences for and the models of self-similar skeletal structures in fusion devices, severe weather phenomena and space

*Force-free magnetic filaments and the cosmic background radiation

*Fractal Structures and the Large Scale Distribution of Galaxies

*Finite size effects on the galaxy number counts: evidence for fractal behavior up to the deepest scale - Physica A226 195–242 (1996).

*On the Fractal Nature of the Large-Scale Structure of the Universe

*Fractal universe. - Physica A, Vol. 280, No. 1 - 2, p. 125 - 130, 2000.

*Skeletal Structures in the Images of Cosmic Dust Clouds and Solar SystemPlanets - Plasma Science, IEEE Transactions on Volume 35, Issue 4, Aug. 2007

* Self-Similarity of Electric Currents Networking in a Broad Range of Length Scales: from Laboratory to Cosmic Plasmas - A. B. Kukushkin and V. A. Rantsev-Kartinov, Rev. Scientific Instr., 70, n.2, pp.1387-1391, 1999.

*Electrodynamic Aggregation of Nanodust as a Source of Long-Lived Filaments in Laboratory Electric Discharges and Space - Kukushkin, A.B. Plasma Science, IEEE Transactions on Volume 35, Issue 4, Aug. 2007.

*Observation of Skeletal Filamentary Structures in Plasma of a Fast Z-Pinch - American Physical Society, 44th Annual Meeting of the Division of Plasma, 2002

*Skeletal Structures in High-Current Electric Discharges: Observations, Hypotheses and Proof-of-Concept Studies - 29th EPS Conference on Plasma Phys. and Contr. Fusion Montreux, 17-21 June 2002

*Conceptual Problems of Fractal Cosmology - Astronomical and Astrophysical Transactions, vol. 19, Issue 3, pp.417-435, 2000.

**Principles of Magnetohydrodynamics: With Applications to Laboratory and Astrophysical Plasmas, Goedbloed and S. Poedts, Cambridge, 2004. [lecture notes]

... snip ...

Maybe some of these would be interesting to discuss.

However

And, finally, i return to my end point;

I'm done from this forum for now. I can see that no matter what i post it will either be directly ignored, or just recieve a host of indirect angry responses. Theres no point me just adding the occasional daily comment I planned to if I dont have the time to defend my position from all the personal attacks that follow. Over And Out.

Click to expand...

so why should anyone bother?

I guess, to be fair, we should ask anyone reading this post if they are willing to answer questions about the science in any of these works ... if there is anyone, then we can have a discussion.

I'll address just one, the Lerner (1992) paper ("Force-free magnetic filaments and the cosmic background radiation"): the idea is an interesting one, but is very easy to test, and, sadly for Lerner (and Zeuzzz and PC proponents), it fails the test, badly.

In essence, Lerner is proposing that the universe becomes opaque to microwaves below a certain frequency, is transparent above that frequency (it's actually more of a range than a sharp frequency cutoff), and that the scale-length for opacity is a few Mpc (the paper is rather weak on what bounds there should be for this).

However, the universe is, apparently, quite transparent, to microwaves and radio, way out to z ~5 (there's more of course, but that will do for now).

Further, Lerner wrote this in 1992; since then there's been a great deal of work done on the CMB, and large-scale structure. It would be interesting to know if Lerner has attempted to show how his proposed mechanism can account for the consistency between the CMB angular power spectrum and large-scale structure as derived from surveys such as SDSS (my guess is that he couldn't, so he hasn't even tried).

There are lots more possible tests, of the consistency kind (e.g. something similar to microlensing, polarisation studies, cosmic ray propagation, and 'local' filaments).

Plasma Cosmology - Woo or not

Banned

Penultimate Amazing

The Grammar Tyrant

Penultimate Amazing

Philosopher

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Master Poster

Banned

Penultimate Amazing

Intellectual Gladiator

Intellectual Gladiator

Intellectual Gladiator

Illuminator

The Grammar Tyrant

Banned

Penultimate Amazing

Illuminator

Penultimate Amazing

Intellectual Gladiator

Master Poster

Banned

Master Poster

Penultimate Amazing

Banned

Banned

Tergiversator

Penultimate Amazing

Philosopher

Tergiversator

Banned

Penultimate Amazing

Banned

Intellectual Gladiator

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Master Poster

Master Poster

Master Poster

Master Poster