Plasma Cosmology - Woo or not

robinson said:
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.
Click to expand...
Please give evidence of where anyone in this thread has implied they fear what they don't know or where anyone has implied they can't imagine there is anything unknown.

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.
Click to expand...
Please give an example where someone in this thread other than Zeuzzz or JdG have attacked or mocked something they themselves don't understand. Do not include examples where the lack of understanding is due to Zeuzzz or JdG being vague or evasive.

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.
Click to expand...
Please give an example of where such data has been presented. Then please give an example of where someone has refused to believe it.

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.
Click to expand...
Example please.

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.
Click to expand...
Well the internets a big place. But I take your point.

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.
Click to expand...
Please tell us who you believe is a troll. Then please give us evidence of their troll behaviour.

Nobody cares.

But this plasma stuff, now that is some messed up science.
Click to expand...
That's why lots of scientists study it.
 
Well DRD, that was a great response to a spam bomb, it would appear that Zeuzzz just wants to get in his licks and then run. I found glaring errors in the introductory stuff he posted and now you find glaring errors in the supposedly technical material he presents.

But Zeuzzz will not come back to defend what he has cited, which is too bad.

there is a place for plasma in cosmology.

What there is no place for is the philosophical and appeals to emotion that many PC proponents (not Perrat or even Alfven) use to bolster their argument.

But when push comes to shove the numbers don't jive. I will have to research one of BACs favorites the Lerner plasmoid which defies gravitational collapse. i am sure that Lerner is smart and says things carefully, but just like Zeuzz and Perrat I am sure Lerner is cautious in what he says but his followers will cite material that is out of date and blow it out of proportion.
 
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
Click to expand...
You didn't notice the post directly after it?

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).
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Do you realise 2 and 3 are in direct conflict to steady state theory?
Do you realise you use SST papers to oppose the Big Bang consensus. Could you explain to us how papers which you claim are so damaging to the Big Bang theory are not equally damaging to plasma cosmology?
 
Last edited:
(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 ...
Click to expand...
A couple of extra things on this part ...

"this uncensored version of the wikipedia page on plasma cosmology": when it comes to topics such as plasma cosmology, Wikipedia may not be the most reliable source, for reasons that are (or should be) well known. However, to call the material written by "Elerner" (in 2006) "uncensored" betrays a certain ... bias, shall we say. It's also interesting that Zeuzzz chose not to mention the following caveat, right at the top of the page, preceded by a large orange exclamation mark: "The neutrality and factual accuracy of this article are disputed." No surprise; a page written by Elearner gives extraordinary prominence to the work of a certain "Lerner, E. J."

On the plus side, Elerner openly mentions several of the problems and challenges his version of PC faces (in this he serves as a welcome contrast to BeAChooser, robinson, and to a large extent Zeuzzz; if iantresman had continued posting in this forum, I suspect he too would be at least as open as Elerner about many of the problems). For example, the section on Alfvén's ambiplasma and he and Klein's attempts to explain the Hubble relationship.

On the minus side, Elerner, like Zeuzzz (and BeAChooser, and ...) leaves some, quite serious, problems unstated or understated. For example, he highlights Peratt and Lerner's work on structure formation (e.g. spiral shapes in galaxies, filaments of many scales), and blandly mentions, in effect, that Peratt's 'no CDM' spiral galaxy model is inconsistent with estimates of the amount of CDM from gravitational lensing ("The mass estimates of galaxy clusters using gravitational lensing, which is a measurement independent of the rotation curves, also indicate that there is a large quantity of dark matter present independent of the measurements of galaxy rotation curves."). Not mentioned at all are the very serious difficulties with the Peratt model (discussed in another JREF thread), and the fact that the mass of spiral galaxies can be estimated using gravitation lensing too (and those estimates are consistent with them having massive CDM halos - another blow to Peratt's model).

Another example of omission is Olbers' paradox.

Alfvén recognised this as a knotty question (in one of the papers cited in the overview Zeuzzz conveniently posts), and proposed a robust solution (in effect a fractal scaling, so that at ever larger scales the universe becomes less dense faster than it can overheat due to the simple premise of Olbers). Elerner appears to recognise that this is also a knotty question, for any 'eternal' universe; conveniently his "fractal scaling relationship (with fractal dimension equal to two)" would neatly make Olbers' paradox go away (note that until Zeuzzz read up on Lerner, he never mentioned anything about fractal scaling; now that he has, Zeuzzz seems to be singing Lerner's "fractal scaling relationship is a key prediction of plasma cosmology" tune with all his heart!).

Elerner does cite Tegmark et al. ([35]), and even quotes the paper ("The failure of the fractal model is clearly indicated by the deviation of the matter power spectrum from a power law at scales larger than 0.5 h Mpc-1 (visible here).The authors comment that their work has "thereby [driven] yet another nail into the coffin of the fractal universe hypothesis...""). Oddly, Elerner does not also mention that the WMAP team's analysis of the CMB produces an estimate of large-scale structure that is completely consistent with that from teams like SDSS; nor does he mention the observational detection of BAO (baryon acoustic oscillation) in the 'local' universe. It's a relatively simple matter to put these together, and show that an 'eternal' PC universe would not, and could not, resolve Olbers' paradox, even with Lerner's tired light.
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 :D. 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 :rolleyes:

... snip ...
Click to expand...
Wow, just wow!

Zeuzzz, apply for a job as spin-master for any politician ... with creativity such as this, you're sure to be hired in an instant! :p

Once again the willingness to accept what must surely be quite intolerable internal inconsistencies points to PC being built on an approach to science that differs fundamentally from that of contemporary physics.

We've asked Zeuzzz (and JdG, and robinson, and ...) before, but have as yet received no answers: "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" (Elerner; Zeuzzz and others are far more demanding - no black holes in the lab, ergo no black holes period), yet, to take just two examples, Arp (he of 'intrinsic redshifts') and Burbidge (he of QSSC and thermalising starlight to produce the CMB, with no mechanism, and directly inconsistent with Lerner's own model) become, in spin-meister Zeuzzz' hands "pioneers of plasma cosmology and other contributors to this field" who "have been working in [the PC] field [...] for their entire lifetimes".

Wow ... just wow! :eye-poppi

(to be continued)
 
(continued)
Zeuzzz said:
... snip ...

This page sums up some ideas behind PC quite well;
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Plasma_cosmology&oldid=88919194
Click to expand...
This is the source for the earlier quoted Overview; I discussed this Elerner document in my previous post.
And this peer reviewed publication directly compares the two cosmologies:
http://bigbangneverhappened.org/p27.htm
Click to expand...
Peer-reviewed?

There's no publication details that I could see - perhaps you know something that's not on that page itself, Zeuzzz? If so, how's about sharing it with readers of this thread?

For those who haven't yet clicked on the link, it takes you to a page with what looks like a draft paper by E. J. Lerner. It's undated, but seems to have been written in 2003 (or perhaps 2004). It contains similar material to what's in the "uncensored" wikipedia page, absent material that was published after 2003.

Although it has four section labels, there are only three sections (I, II, and IV; III seems to have gone AWOL - that alone suggests that it has not, pace Zeuzzz, been published).

The purported 'comparisons' are interesting; the over-blown, exaggerated summaries are not (but their spin pales compared to that of Zeuzzz - maybe he should offer to be Lerner's spin-meister?).

Apart from the observed abundances of elements and isotopes (section I; which I may cover in a later post), most of what Lerner wrote in the other two sections has been overtaken by subsequently published observations, which the Wikipedia page at least acknowledges (and which I have said pretty much demolish the case for PC).

Most curious is what Lerner did not write: nothing on 'tired light', nor the Hubble relationship, nor CDM, nor large-scale structure (other than 'voids can't form/voids can form'). A true comparison of cosmologies should surely include these!

And so on ...
If your going to read and critique any PC material, read both of them.
Click to expand...
OK, did that.

Based on the material presented, it's clear that PC, as presented by Lerner, is not woo.

It's also clear that it's very different from the PC presented by Zeuzzz in an earlier thread; specifically, Lerner would disown Scott, Thornhill, Talbot (sp?) et al. in a heartbeat. He'd also find Jürgens hard to accept, and Bruce a borderline woo (however, as these guys wrote well before much of the high quality data from space probes were to hand, maybe Lerner would simply put their work into a historical context). Most of the other stuff seagull Zeuzzz woo-spammed on us Lerner would surely recognise as woo. Peratt? Hard to say ...

What about Lerner's version of PC, as it confronts observational evidence? That would make for some interesting discussions; sadly, I rather doubt JdG, BAC, or robinson would be up to having such, and as Zeuzzz will not be returning ...
 
DeiRenDopa said:
It's also clear that it's very different from the PC presented by Zeuzzz in an earlier thread; specifically, Lerner would disown Scott, Thornhill, Talbot (sp?) et al. in a heartbeat. He'd also find Jürgens hard to accept, and Bruce a borderline woo (however, as these guys wrote well before much of the high quality data from space probes were to hand, maybe Lerner would simply put their work into a historical context). Most of the other stuff seagull Zeuzzz woo-spammed on us Lerner would surely recognise as woo. Peratt? Hard to say ...

What about Lerner's version of PC, as it confronts observational evidence? That would make for some interesting discussions; sadly, I rather doubt JdG, BAC, or robinson would be up to having such, and as Zeuzzz will not be returning ...
Click to expand...

:bigclap

Fantastic effort, posting that series of answers! Most of it, I even had a dim kind of understanding of, so your achievement knows no bounds!

In fact, your responses have been so well constructed and written that it's given me an idea.
 
Last edited:
I'm simply amazed at the amount of effort and time put into some of the writings here. I tend to scroll past the wall of text, but it is impressive.
 
DeiRenDopa said:
(continued)
This is the source for the earlier quoted Overview; I discussed this Elerner document in my previous post.Peer-reviewed?

There's no publication details that I could see - perhaps you know something that's not on that page itself, Zeuzzz? If so, how's about sharing it with readers of this thread?

For those who haven't yet clicked on the link, it takes you to a page with what looks like a draft paper by E. J. Lerner. It's undated, but seems to have been written in 2003 (or perhaps 2004). It contains similar material to what's in the "uncensored" wikipedia page, absent material that was published after 2003.

Although it has four section labels, there are only three sections (I, II, and IV; III seems to have gone AWOL - that alone suggests that it has not, pace Zeuzzz, been published).
Click to expand...


.... I said I wouldn't post any comments for a while, but I just have to point a few things out with this last post........ occasional lurking without commenting is a lot harder than I anticipated :) but i'm not going to start getting into a full blown debate, dont have the time.

And heres the publication in its proper context:

Two world systems revisited: a comparison of plasma cosmology and the Big Bang - Plasma Science, IEEE Transactions on Volume 31, Issue 6, Dec. 2003 Page(s): 1268 - 1275

Based on the material presented, it's clear that PC, as presented by Lerner, is not woo.
Click to expand...


I underestimated your degree of open mindedness :thumbsup: Maybe this thread will not turn out to be a completely lost cause...

And PC, as presented by Lerner, is PC. Doesn't matter who's presenting it.

It's also clear that it's very different from the PC presented by Zeuzzz in an earlier thread; specifically, Lerner would disown Scott, Thornhill, Talbot (sp?) et al. in a heartbeat.
Click to expand...


What they have to do with plasma cosmology is beyond me. Scott and Thornhill are Electric Universe advocates, and, to the best of my knowledge, have published no material about plasma cosmology, or even cosmology, what-so-ever. And in my opinion Talbot should not be listened to as an authority on anything, his ideas are too near many of velikovsky's mad ideas for my liking, and i've never been a fan of his. Thats why I have continually tried to draw a distinction between the more established plasma cosmology ideas and the more radical EU ideas. Its very easy to get them muddled, as pretty much all EU proponents are supporters of plasma cosmology and so continually talk about plasma cosmology in their material; however you will rarely see any PC proponents talk about the more recent EU ideas. Maybe in the future they will, some ideas seem to be gaining acceptance amoungst many colleagues at the IEEE, but plasma cosmology proponents have so far kept EU theories at a distance (and I can see why from the reactions EU often provokes from most astronomers). I would save mention of EU advocates/theories for other threads.


Most of the other stuff seagull Zeuzzz woo-spammed on us Lerner would surely recognise as woo. Peratt? Hard to say ...
Click to expand...


Lerner and peratt are very close colleagues, and work together on a regular basis. If I remember correctly, Lerner and Peratt were joint directors of the IEEE journal of Pulsed Power Plasma Science years back, plus both of their scientific material is complementary.

What about Lerner's version of PC, as it confronts observational evidence? That would make for some interesting discussions; sadly, I rather doubt JdG, BAC, or robinson would be up to having such, and as Zeuzzz will not be returning ...
Click to expand...


not be returning for now, just lurking....

But I'll add the occasional comment when I can add direct info to the discussion, or when something is misrepresented, its very hard not to :)
 
Last edited:
robinson said:
I just realized DRD is the doppelgänger of BAC.
Click to expand...

You mean like the Spock with a beard?

Unlike some posters, DRD goes out of her/his way to explain themselves.

Of course I can never tell when you are being reverse contrarian sceptic and sarcastic contrarian sceptic. It was easier for me to remember when you had L. Black as your avatar.
I could always imagine the post starting with "And another thing John..."
 
Zeuzzz said:
What they have to do with plasma cosmology is beyond me. Scott and Thornhill are Electric Universe advocates, and, to the best of my knowledge, have published no material about plasma cosmology, or even cosmology, what-so-ever.
Click to expand...

Now I'm confused.

He also seems to have ignored the huge post I wrote previously with the predictions of Alfven, Birkeland, Thornhill, or any of the other plasma cosmologists correct predictions.
Click to expand...
So Thornhill is a plasma cosmologist when you think he's got things right but has "published no material about plasma cosmology" when you don't?

ETA: Actually it gets better. See here. Notice in particular the title of the Scott article
 
Last edited:
The Atheist said:
Now, my knowledge of the universe would comfortably fit on a postage stamp, with room left over for the address, so I had no idea whether Plasma Cosmology was a real possibility or just rubbish. Fortunately, DeiRenDopa - a bloke who's only been here three months - has come along and smashed the entire case with a series of long and complete rebuts of "teh evidence" presented.
Click to expand...



You call that a "series of long and complete rebuts"???

Which ones in particular do you agree with?

Sorry, I must have missed this. DRD's posts have really not addressed much at all. I suggest that DRD puts these rebuts to PC in a bullet list, not hidden within lines upon lines of personal opinion and (often) misrepresentaions, and and we'll just have to see....

Her point about gravitational lensing disproving it shows a complete lack of what is being proposed, for example, as does the Olbers' paradox point, which is solved in PC, and theres probably more.... from a preliminary scan, the rest is just lots of personal opinion that I shouldn't comment on, or i'll just end up getting invloved in a full on debate....

But kudos to DRD for actually taking the time, it seems that she/he has now actually read a few of the links I have provided :thumbsup:
 
Last edited:
Zeuzzz said:
You call that a "series of long and complete rebuts"???
Click to expand...
I certainly do.

Which ones in particular do you agree with?
Click to expand...
All of them.

Sorry, I must have missed this. DRD's posts have really not addressed much at all. I suggest that DRD puts these rebuts to PC in a bullet list, not hidden within lines upon lines of personal opinion and (often) misrepresentaions, and and we'll just have to see....
Click to expand...
I'm currently choking on the hypocrisy/irony of the above.

Her point about gravitational lensing disproving it shows a complete lack of what is being proposed, for example, as does the Olbers' paradox point, which is solved in PC, and theres probably more....
Click to expand...
Putting 'is' in bold does not make it so Zeuzzz.

from a preliminary scan, the rest is just lots of personal opinion that I shouldn't comment on, or i'll just end up getting invloved in a full on debate....
Click to expand...
I suggest you re-read the posts then.
 
Last edited:
Sigh... I wonder where Jerome is? He's probably busy coming up with his specific definition of "redshift anomaly" - yes, that's it... I'm certain of it :rolleyes:
 
Tubbythin said:
Now I'm confused.


So Thornhill is a plasma cosmologist when you think he's got things right but has "published no material about plasma cosmology" when you don't?

ETA: Actually it gets better. See here. Notice in particular the title of the Scott article
Click to expand...
There's much, much more ...

For example, from here (selections; bolding added):
Heres a small list of some of the plasma cosmology papers published in mainstream astronmy journals;

* How Can Spirals Persist? - Astrophysics and Space Science, Volume 227, Issue 1-2, pp. 175-186

* X-Ray-emitting QSOS Ejected from Arp 220 - The Astrophysical Journal, Volume 553, Issue 1, pp. L11-L13.

* A Possible Relationship between Quasars and Clusters of Galaxies - The Astrophysical Journal, Volume 549, Issue 2, pp. 802-819.

* On Quasar Distances and Lifetimes in a Local Model - The Astrophysical Journal, 567:801–810, 2002 March 10

* Filamentation of volcanic plumes on the Jovian satellite I0 - Astrophysics and Space Science (ISSN 0004-640X), vol. 144, no. 1-2,

* Distances of Quasars and Quasar‐like Galaxies: Further Evidence That Quasi‐stellar Objects May Be Ejected from Active Galaxies - The Astrophysical Journal, 616:738–744, 2004

* Galactic and extragalactic radio astronomy (2nd edition) - Berlin and New York, Springer-Verlag, 1988, 715 p. For individual items see A89-40410 to A89-40424.

* Magnetic Fields in Interstellar Neutral-Hydrogen Clouds - Astrophysical Journal, vol. 155, p.L155
Click to expand...
It's worth repeating what sol invictus wrote in post #85, in full:
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.
Click to expand...
So ...

On the one hand, a perfectly straight-forward paper reporting astronomical observations is a 'plasma cosmology paper' ...

On the other hand, a paper reporting 'intrinsic redshifts' is a 'plasma cosmology paper' ...

On the third hand, a paper directly inconsistent with Lerner's (on quasars) is a 'plasma cosmology paper' ...

On the fourth hand, a paper proposing some new physics not found in any (plasma) lab (nor any Lerner or Peratt papers) is a 'plasma cosmology paper' ...

On the fifth hand, a paper on solar system (planetary) phenomena is a 'plasma cosmology paper' ...

And so on.
 
DeiRenDopa said:
There's much, much more ...

For example, from here (selections; bolding added):It's worth repeating what sol invictus wrote in post #85, in full:So ...

On the one hand, a perfectly straight-forward paper reporting astronomical observations is a 'plasma cosmology paper' ...

On the other hand, a paper reporting 'intrinsic redshifts' is a 'plasma cosmology paper' ...

On the third hand, a paper directly inconsistent with Lerner's (on quasars) is a 'plasma cosmology paper' ...

On the fourth hand, a paper proposing some new physics not found in any (plasma) lab (nor any Lerner or Peratt papers) is a 'plasma cosmology paper' ...

On the fifth hand, a paper on solar system (planetary) phenomena is a 'plasma cosmology paper' ...

And so on.
Click to expand...


Look. It really matters little what category you choose to put material under. All of those publications are regarded by plasma cosmologists to be of much higher importance than standard astronomers. Does that make them plasma cosmology papers? Yes And No. If you were showing someone the ideas behind PC/PU you would show them those papers, so you could call them plasma cosmology papers. you could also call them plasma universe papers. Some of them you could call electric universe papers. What does it matter? Your just re-enforcing separatist ideologies. Thornhill supports plasma cosmology, but often has more radical ideas than most PC proponents. Does that not make him a plasma cosmologist? Its entirely subjective. Its easy for people to just lump people into, for example, the EU category, and say "well, this falls under the EU bracket, so its obviously all crackpot", but thats just your opinion. Each piece of material should be judged on its individual merits, not just stereotyped into a certain group and dismissed.

Plasma cosmology is the study of the plasma universe, so any paper dealing with the plasma universe falls under that scope.

Continual discussion of which category this person, or this prediction, or this theory, fits into does nothing to progress the issue at hand. Nothing.



And by the way DRD, Lerner has read the latest editions of Transactions on Plasma Science, which includes some of Scotts and Thornhills more established peer reviewed material, and he said that he found the material very interesting, I saw an article on Lerners website about Thornhill and his colleagues at the IEEE's electric model of stars, and he seemed to like the idea. And no, there is nothing ludicrous at all about this model in the peer reviewed publications that have been published on it. You should not dismiss material just because you dislike the person who wrote it. Much of the highly speculative stuff, ie, the sun is charged at 10>12 Coulombs, fuelled by Z-pinches on its surface, etc, etc, is left only for discussion on the net. Unfortunately, the wildest ideas seem to attract the most attention.
 
Last edited:
Zeuzzz said:
... snip ...

I suggest that DRD puts these rebuts to PC in a bullet list, not hidden within lines upon lines of personal opinion and (often) misrepresentaions, and and we'll just have to see....

... snip ...

the rest is just lots of personal opinion that I shouldn't comment on, or i'll just end up getting invloved in a full on debate....

But kudos to DRD for actually taking the time, it seems that she/he has now actually read a few of the links I have provided :thumbsup:
Click to expand...
.

From an earlier post by Zeuzzz:

.
DeiRenDopa said:
What about Lerner's version of PC, as it confronts observational evidence? That would make for some interesting discussions; sadly, I rather doubt JdG, BAC, or robinson would be up to having such, and as Zeuzzz will not be returning ...
Click to expand...

not be returning for now, just lurking....

But I'll add the occasional comment when I can add direct info to the discussion, or when something is misrepresented, its very hard not to
Click to expand...
.

And here's what sol invictus said, several pages ago (it seems; I added bolding):
.
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.
Click to expand...
.

As I think should be pretty clear to most readers by now, Zeuzzz does not actually read the material he spams various threads with, in order to promote PC (at least, not critically), so I guess it's not strange that he should be surprised that at least someone does.

But what of the attitude so clearly stated in the posts by Zeuzzz I have quoted?

Instead of offering detailed analyses, point by point counter-rebuttals, etc, etc, etc (the very thing Zeuzzz himself complained that his critics did not do*), what does Zeuzzz do? Issue one-liners, and declare, yet again, his unwillingness to actually address questions about what he has posted.

For the record, how many times have I, and others, asked you direct questions about what you have posted Zeuzzz, questions that were highly relevant to the core content of your posts, that you have chosen to walk away from?

Why do you think you have been called, by several people, a troll?

We'll see ... taking a page from sol invictus' book, I'll give you a test, in the next day or so ...

* you want someone to go dig up your very own words on this Zeuzzz? Read what sol wrote, again ...
 
Zeuzzz said:
Look. It really matters little what category you choose to put material under. All of those publications are regarded by plasma cosmologists to be of much higher importance than standard astronomers. Does that make them plasma cosmology papers? Yes And No. If you were showing someone the ideas behind PC/PU you would show them those papers, so you could call them plasma cosmology papers. you could also call them plasma universe papers. Some of them you could call electric universe papers. What does it matter? Your just re-enforcing separatist ideologies. Thornhill supports plasma cosmology, but often has more radical ideas than most PC proponents. Does that not make him a plasma cosmologist? Its entirely subjective. Its easy for people to just lump people into, for example, the EU category, and say "well, this falls under the EU bracket, so its obviously all crackpot", but thats just your opinion. Each piece of material should be judged on its individual merits, not just stereotyped into a certain group and dismissed.

Plasma cosmology is the study of the plasma universe, so any paper dealing with the plasma universe falls under that scope.

Continual discussion of which category this person, or this prediction, or this theory, fits into does nothing to progress the issue at hand. Nothing.



And by the way DRD, Lerner has read the latest editions of Transactions on Plasma Science, which includes some of Scotts and Thornhills more established peer reviewed material, and he said that he found the material very interesting, I saw an article on Lerners website about Thornhill and his colleagues at the IEEE's electric model of stars, and he seemed to like the idea. And no, there is nothing ludicrous at all about this model in the peer reviewed publications that have been published on it. You should not dismiss material just because you dislike the person who wrote it. Much of the highly speculative stuff, ie, the sun is charged at 10>12 Coulombs, fuelled by Z-pinches on its surface, etc, etc, is left only for discussion on the net. Unfortunately, the wildest ideas seem to attract the most attention.
Click to expand...
(bold added)

Is this the very same Zeuzzz who earlier made a quite remarkable declaration about Lerner and PC*?

Anyway, let's look at just one part, shall we?
Plasma cosmology is the study of the plasma universe, so any paper dealing with the plasma universe falls under that scope.
Click to expand...
Hmm ...

Does the converse also hold? If a paper is NOT "the study of the plasma universe", does it "fall under that scope"?

And since, by definition of iantresman (and, no doubt, Lerner), the universe is 99.[insert more 9s here, to your heart's content]% plasma, does that make every paper written by every astronomer, astrophysicist, (etc) a "plasma cosmology paper"?

How about a straight answer to a simple question that you have been asked several times? How are papers by Arp (et al.), on 'intrinsic redshifts' (however defined) 'plasma cosmology papers'? Especially the ones which make no mention of plasma?

And while you're at it, how about references to lab-based experiments that report 'intrinsic redshifts' of the magnitude and nature Arp (et al.) write so many papers about? Even references to papers by Lerner (or Peratt) would be nice. Don't forget that Arp et al. are very clear that 'intrinsic redshifts' include some very high values, and that they apply to entire galaxies (not just point sources).

Also, I notice that you left out one category: 'plasma cosmology papers' which include models (etc) that are strongly inconsistent with Peratt/Lerner (plasma cosmology) ones.

Oh, and who wrote the very first paper in my selection from your list? Other than a reference to a Peratt paper (one of only a very few), what does her idea have to do with plasma cosmology?

* do I have to remind readers what you actually wrote, Zeuzzz?
 
Zeuzzz said:
... snip ...

Her point about gravitational lensing disproving it shows a complete lack of what is being proposed,

... snip ...
Click to expand...
Let's see now ...

Start with gravitational lensing: in (Lerner's) PC, do photons follow null geodesics? A simple YES or NO answer please (and no ducking the question by claiming you don't have the background in physics to be able to say, you've already declared that you do).

Good, they do.

Next, is it possible, in principle, to estimate the mass which causes 'gravitational lensing' by an approach like ray tracing? A simple YES or NO answer please (and no ducking the question by claiming you don't have the background in physics to be able to say, you've already declared that you do).

Good, it is.

Next, have reliable reports of high-quality observations been reported, in the peer-reviewed literature, of galaxies lensing background objects? This may be new to you, but it shouldn't be ... if you have been actually reading what I have written.

Good, they have.

Next, have 'mass maps' been made of these lensing galaxies? Or, have robust estimates been made of the mass of these lenses?

...

Here's the bottom line, Zeuzzz: galaxies have masses far in excess of that which you can estimate from objects and material, in the galaxies, which emits light (across the entire EM spectrum), or absorbs it ... as determined by gravitational lensing observations.

Now comes the PC-killer point in the logic chain (at least, PC per Lerner, and now Zeuzzz): the large-scale, average motions of stars, gas, plasma (etc) in galaxies can be accounted for entirely by the gravity due to the mass in the galaxies acting on the mass in the galaxies (enter the usual caveats, e.g. about colliding/merging galaxies). So who needs PC?

One more thing: Lerner puts great store in observations of a small number of high velocity ('halo') white dwarfs observed recently. He shouldn't, and should know better ... the various microlensing surveys constrain any such populations to levels far below 'baryonic matter in the halo is sufficient to account for spiral galaxy rotation curves' (as do the various deep HST observations), and only the most irresponsible extrapolations of the actual, independently verified, astronomical observations would suggest they could anyway.

But then you already knew all this, right? So you have, presumably, already got a draft paper ready to submit to arXiv, in support of PC AND consistent with all the various observations, right? And you're only too pleased to roll up your sleeves and discuss the actual observations in all their gory details ... right?
 
Zeuzzz said:
.... I said I wouldn't post any comments for a while
<snip>
What they have to do with plasma cosmology is beyond me. Scott and Thornhill are Electric Universe advocates, and, to the best of my knowledge, have published no material about plasma cosmology, or even cosmology, what-so-ever.
Click to expand...
Zeuzzz said:
Look. It really matters little what category you choose to put material under. All of those publications are regarded by plasma cosmologists to be of much higher importance than standard astronomers. Does that make them plasma cosmology papers? Yes And No. If you were showing someone the ideas behind PC/PU you would show them those papers, so you could call them plasma cosmology papers. you could also call them plasma universe papers. Some of them you could call electric universe papers. What does it matter? Your just re-enforcing separatist ideologies.
Click to expand...

Brilliant stuff - absolutely brilliant. Keep it up, please!
 
Last edited:
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?
Click to expand...

MattusMaximus said:
Sigh... I wonder where Jerome is? He's probably busy coming up with his specific definition of "redshift anomaly" - yes, that's it... I'm certain of it :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

The answers I received to the above questions show that the "true believers" care not for evidence. Why would I present information if it is being dismissed prior to presentation?
 
JEROME DA GNOME said:
The answers I received to the above questions show that the "true believers" care not for evidence. Why would I present information if it is being dismissed prior to presentation?
Click to expand...
What the "true believers" in science care for is evidence. I personally would just like to know
  1. What do you think the redshift anomaly is?
  2. What application does this have to Plasma Cosmology (the subject of this post)?
In case you are interested I do know what the redshift anomaly is and I do know what application it has to Plasma Cosmology (none).
 
JEROME DA GNOME said:
The answers I received to the above questions show that the "true believers" care not for evidence. Why would I present information if it is being dismissed prior to presentation?
Click to expand...


Then present the evidence, if it involves the use of a posteriori statistics and not representative sampling and distribution values compared against controls then it is NOT science.

Does that bother you so much Jerome, what Arp, Burbidge and Gutierez do when it comes to associations of galaxies and QSOs is not science, it is wishful thinking. They are all capable of good bounded science but they don't use a control group when it comes to galaxy QSO associations. (Really, they don't, they use a shell game to pretend the statistics have meaning, Arp in fact preselected his most recent object of study on periodic redshifts, which is rather a sample bias.)

I think that is something you might want to think about, so what is this some sort of secret initiatory society?

"You can only see the evidence after you demonstrate that you are worthy."

Give me a break Jerome, I will critique your evidence, I think you just don't want to face the facts and so you play Mystery Data.

I will evaluate your data on the basis of the merits usually applied to data in science, so if you can it would be nice to see. I have usually tried to be polite in these discussions with BAC.

If you have evidence of interaction between the QSOs and the galaxies i would like to see it.
 
Dancing David said:
Then present the evidence, if it involves the use of a posteriori statistics and not representative sampling and distribution values compared against controls then it is NOT science.

Does that bother you so much Jerome, what Arp, Burbidge and Gutierez do when it comes to associations of galaxies and QSOs is not science, it is wishful thinking. They are all capable of good bounded science but they don't use a control group when it comes to galaxy QSO associations. (Really, they don't, they use a shell game to pretend the statistics have meaning, Arp in fact preselected his most recent object of study on periodic redshifts, which is rather a sample bias.)

I think that is something you might want to think about, so what is this some sort of secret initiatory society?

"You can only see the evidence after you demonstrate that you are worthy."

Give me a break Jerome, I will critique your evidence, I think you just don't want to face the facts and so you play Mystery Data.

I will evaluate your data on the basis of the merits usually applied to data in science, so if you can it would be nice to see. I have usually tried to be polite in these discussions with BAC.

If you have evidence of interaction between the QSOs and the galaxies i would like to see it.
Click to expand...



See, the evidence is known and dismissed as wishful thinking.
 
JEROME DA GNOME said:
See, the evidence is known and dismissed as wishful thinking.
Click to expand...


Hmm, so how does Arp, Burbidge or Gutierez determine the actual distribution of QSOs across the sky. A mean variable of distribution (assuming they are evenly distributed) is not enough.

The usual scientific method (not the pixie occurrence method) is to sample the actual distribution, these are then the normative values of the sample (IE you sample 'normal galaxies, random points on the sky), then you compare it to the sample of the 'experimental' group.

This is something that Arp, Burbidge and Gutierez have not done.

Do you have a problem with science Jerome?

As I said Arp et al can resolve this very easily, they can make the normative samples and then compare the experimental sample to the normative sample. If it rises a standard deviation above the normative distribution then they might have something, if it rises more than that they definitely have something.

So you have a problem with census sampling and surveys and dismiss the science for pixie counting. How strange, Arp, Burbidge and Gutierez could have done this at any time and then people would not dismiss their evidence.

But what they have done is said that a royal flush being dealt is a sign of cheating, without the statistical sample to prove it.

They could prove their theory at any point in time by doing the normative distribution , that is what a statistical scientist would do. I wonder why they don't.

Arp in his most recent paper gushes about how he found a galaxy with 9 QSOs that meet the Karlsson peaks 'like a key in a lock' but he at the top of the page also mentions that he deliberately screened the sample to find the galaxy that best meets the Karlsson values. That is like saying that you have found the best race horse by looking at the average winds of the horse. That does not prove that horse racing ability is not distributed randomly amongst horses.

Arp can not prove that his sample correlation rises above the noise level of random association?

Why? Because he has not done the representative samples for his normative distribution.

Something that would get him laughed out of an epidemiology conference or a psychology conference.

Do you want to address this JDG?


It is something that should have been addressed long ago, but what Arp et al. do with these alleged correlations is not science, other wise they would have the control groups of normative distribution to prove that their correlation rises above noise level.

Does that bother you? It is why it is wishful thinking they have done something that would cause them to fail freshman sociology.

They could make it science at any time, why don’t they do so?


Hmmmm?
 
The Atheist said:
:bigclap

Fantastic effort, posting that series of answers! Most of it, I even had a dim kind of understanding of, so your achievement knows no bounds!

In fact, your responses have been so well constructed and written that it's given me an idea.
Click to expand...
Thank you.

I'd like to say that the groundwork laid by sol invictus, ben m, Ziggurat, The Man, Dancing David, and many others, in the Something new under the sun thread was extremely important to us getting a hard look at PC in this thread.

As was Reality Check's initiative to start this thread, with its clearly defined scope.

However, the real breakthrough came with Zeuzzz posting "a description of Plasma Cosmology" (albeit one that was rather massive in terms of links and quotes) - at last we have something concrete and fairly clearly written up to examine, critique, comment on, etc.

If you'd like dig deeper on any point, or would like something that isn't as clear as you think it could be explained another way, please ask; I for one would be happy to do what I can to help improve your understanding.
 
DeiRenDopa said:
Let's see now ...

Start with gravitational lensing: in (Lerner's) PC, do photons follow null geodesics? A simple YES or NO answer please (and no ducking the question by claiming you don't have the background in physics to be able to say, you've already declared that you do).

Good, they do.

Next, is it possible, in principle, to estimate the mass which causes 'gravitational lensing' by an approach like ray tracing? A simple YES or NO answer please (and no ducking the question by claiming you don't have the background in physics to be able to say, you've already declared that you do).

Good, it is.

Next, have reliable reports of high-quality observations been reported, in the peer-reviewed literature, of galaxies lensing background objects? This may be new to you, but it shouldn't be ... if you have been actually reading what I have written.

Good, they have.

Next, have 'mass maps' been made of these lensing galaxies? Or, have robust estimates been made of the mass of these lenses?

...

Here's the bottom line, Zeuzzz: galaxies have masses far in excess of that which you can estimate from objects and material, in the galaxies, which emits light (across the entire EM spectrum), or absorbs it ... as determined by gravitational lensing observations.

Now comes the PC-killer point in the logic chain (at least, PC per Lerner, and now Zeuzzz): the large-scale, average motions of stars, gas, plasma (etc) in galaxies can be accounted for entirely by the gravity due to the mass in the galaxies acting on the mass in the galaxies (enter the usual caveats, e.g. about colliding/merging galaxies). So who needs PC?

One more thing: Lerner puts great store in observations of a small number of high velocity ('halo') white dwarfs observed recently. He shouldn't, and should know better ... the various microlensing surveys constrain any such populations to levels far below 'baryonic matter in the halo is sufficient to account for spiral galaxy rotation curves' (as do the various deep HST observations), and only the most irresponsible extrapolations of the actual, independently verified, astronomical observations would suggest they could anyway.

But then you already knew all this, right? So you have, presumably, already got a draft paper ready to submit to arXiv, in support of PC AND consistent with all the various observations, right? And you're only too pleased to roll up your sleeves and discuss the actual observations in all their gory details ... right?
Click to expand...
.
One of the papers in Zeuzzz' many lists is one by Snell and Peratt, "Rotation Velocity and Neutral Hydrogen Distribution Dependency on Magnetic Field Strength in Spiral Galaxies", published in 1995. Here's the abstract (I added some bolding):
The rotation velocity of a simulated plasma galaxy is compared to the rotation curves of Sc type spiral galaxies. Both show ‘flat’ rotation curves with velocities of the order of several hundred kilometers per second, modified by E × B instabilities. Maps of the strength and distribution of galactic magnetic fields and neutral hydrogen regions, as-well-as as predictions by particle-in-cell simulations run in the late 1970s, are compared to Effelsberg observations. Agreement between simulation and observation is best when the simulation galaxy masses are identical to the observational masses of spiral galaxies. No dark matter is needed.
Click to expand...
.
First note that this seems to be inconsistent with Lerner - he says the "observational masses of spiral galaxies" is too low, because lots of 'halo' white dwarfs have recently been observed (and some other reasons too).

But note the bigger inconsistency: gravitational lensing observations of (spiral) galaxies shows much more mass than the "observational masses", hence there is a need for dark matter.

But if, as seems likely, Peratt's simulations do not agree with observation ("the strength and distribution galactic magnetic fields and neutral hydrogen regions") when the gravitational lensing estimates of the masses of spiral galaxies are used, what can we conclude about those simulations?

One possible conclusion: Peratt's model of spiral galaxies does not correspond to the reality of spiral galaxies ...
 
Dancing David said:
Hmm, so how does Arp, Burbidge or Gutierez determine the actual distribution of QSOs across the sky. A mean variable of distribution (assuming they are evenly distributed) is not enough.

The usual scientific method (not the pixie occurrence method) is to sample the actual distribution, these are then the normative values of the sample (IE you sample 'normal galaxies, random points on the sky), then you compare it to the sample of the 'experimental' group.

This is something that Arp, Burbidge and Gutierez have not done.

Do you have a problem with science Jerome?

As I said Arp et al can resolve this very easily, they can make the normative samples and then compare the experimental sample to the normative sample. If it rises a standard deviation above the normative distribution then they might have something, if it rises more than that they definitely have something.

So you have a problem with census sampling and surveys and dismiss the science for pixie counting. How strange, Arp, Burbidge and Gutierez could have done this at any time and then people would not dismiss their evidence.

But what they have done is said that a royal flush being dealt is a sign of cheating, without the statistical sample to prove it.

They could prove their theory at any point in time by doing the normative distribution , that is what a statistical scientist would do. I wonder why they don't.

Arp in his most recent paper gushes about how he found a galaxy with 9 QSOs that meet the Karlsson peaks 'like a key in a lock' but he at the top of the page also mentions that he deliberately screened the sample to find the galaxy that best meets the Karlsson values. That is like saying that you have found the best race horse by looking at the average winds of the horse. That does not prove that horse racing ability is not distributed randomly amongst horses.

Arp can not prove that his sample correlation rises above the noise level of random association?

Why? Because he has not done the representative samples for his normative distribution.

Something that would get him laughed out of an epidemiology conference or a psychology conference.

Do you want to address this JDG?


It is something that should have been addressed long ago, but what Arp et al. do with these alleged correlations is not science, other wise they would have the control groups of normative distribution to prove that their correlation rises above noise level.

Does that bother you? It is why it is wishful thinking they have done something that would cause them to fail freshman sociology.

They could make it science at any time, why don’t they do so?


Hmmmm?
Click to expand...


What exactly are your credentials that you so blatantly malign the honesty and integrity of scientists?

Your not one of those wish you could have beens, are you?
 
JEROME DA GNOME said:
What exactly are your credentials that you so blatantly malign the honesty and integrity of scientists?

Your not one of those wish you could have beens, are you?
Click to expand...
Um, ... er, ...

It's no secret, in the astronomy community, that Arp's use of statistics (etc) is, shall we say, poor.

And G. Burbidge (not to be confused with his wife, M. Burbidge) put his name, as author, to a recent paper on QSSC (Quasi-Steady State Cosmology) - or something similar - that is/contains some material that is intellectually dishonest. It's been discussed recently here in the JREF forum (and my recollection of the details may not be entirely accurate); would you like to read it?

So, there's no need for DD to "malign the honesty and integrity" of at least these two (their own records are public, and questions of honesty and integrity are thus objectively and independently verifiable).
 
Zeuzzz said:
Look. It really matters little what category you choose to put material under. All of those publications are regarded by plasma cosmologists to be of much higher importance than standard astronomers. Does that make them plasma cosmology papers? Yes And No. If you were showing someone the ideas behind PC/PU you would show them those papers, so you could call them plasma cosmology papers. you could also call them plasma universe papers. Some of them you could call electric universe papers. What does it matter? Your just re-enforcing separatist ideologies.
Click to expand...

Huh? It was you who was trying to separate them remember:
What they have to do with plasma cosmology is beyond me. Scott and Thornhill are Electric Universe advocates, and, to the best of my knowledge, have published no material about plasma cosmology, or even cosmology, what-so-ever.
Click to expand...
 
Tubbythin said:
Huh? It was you who was trying to separate them remember:
Click to expand...


Depends what you categorize plasma cosmology as. I define it as the study of the plasma universe, which see's no need for an ex nihilo creationist perspective of the universe, and focusses on what processes are ongoing and fully experimentally verifiable, with a lot more attention given to plasma forces and electromagnetism than the traditional gravity and mass only models. This is what most PC proponents would also define it as. So Scotts material, and Thornhills, would fall under this scope, by this definition, as they are dealing specifically with EM forces and plasma effects in the cosmos.

But, it seems that this description is not accepted by most people here, in their opinion any form of cosmology has to be specifically about the observations that are used to prove the Big Bang. Now, Scott and Thornhill have not written anything about the CMB, dark matter, inflation, etc, or other things used to support the Big Bang, so according to many people here, its not categorized as cosmology, or plasma cosmology. Only the material from Peratt, Snell, Lerner and other plasma cosmologists that do address these observations usually associated with a Big Bang would be considered contributing to plasma cosmology. I'm fine with working with this, as I really dont see what difference it makes what group you put work into. Thus why from this viewpoint (the predominant viewpoint of most people in this thread) the work of Scott, Thornhill and their colleaugues is not about plasma cosmology, which is why I said that.

As I said, continual discussion of which category this person, or this prediction, or this theory, fits into does nothing to progress the issue at hand. Each piece of material should be judged on its individual merits, not just stereotyped into a certain group and dismissed. It doesn't help that not much of this material has been discussed here yet either, people are judging it at face value, and often from abstracts only.


...Now to get to DRD's last few posts...

I've briefly read through your posts, and since you didn't create a clear list of your direct refutations of plasma cosmology, like I recommended, I'll have a quick go to see exactly what your getting at, so I can try to respond in the near future.

Please add anything I have missed.



***post #117 http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3683237&postcount=117

Nothing?


***post #118 http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3683316&postcount=118

This post is complaining about a couple of sentences in Eastmans paper. Other than that, Nothing? (and you may want to re-read "The contribution of brown dwarfs to the local mass budget of the Galaxy", the abstract does not really reflect their full conclusions accurately)


***post #119 http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3683385&postcount=119

Nothing?

Maybe this?

"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!)"

I'm really not sure of the specifics of what you are claiming here, and how it directly invalidates PC.


***post #120 http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3683462&postcount=120

1. "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)."


***post #124 http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3684272&postcount=124

2. Peratt's 'no CDM' spiral galaxy model is inconsistent with estimates of the amount of CDM from gravitational lensing

3. Oddly, Elerner does not also mention that the WMAP team's analysis of the CMB produces an estimate of large-scale structure that is completely consistent with that from teams like SDSS; nor does he mention the observational detection of BAO (baryon acoustic oscillation) in the 'local' universe. It's a relatively simple matter to put these together, and show that an 'eternal' PC universe would not, and could not, resolve Olbers' paradox, even with Lerner's tired light.


***post #125 http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3684546&postcount=125

Nothing?

or maybe this?

"(section I; which I may cover in a later post), most of what Lerner wrote in the other two sections has been overtaken by subsequently published observations, which the Wikipedia page at least acknowledges (and which I have said pretty much demolish the case for PC)." Care to ellaborate?


***post #142 http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3685384&postcount=142

Nothing?


***post #143 http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3685419&postcount=143

Nothing?


***post #144 http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3685462&postcount=144

4. Now comes the PC-killer point in the logic chain (at least, PC per Lerner, and now Zeuzzz): the large-scale, average motions of stars, gas, plasma (etc) in galaxies can be accounted for entirely by the gravity due to the mass in the galaxies acting on the mass in the galaxies (enter the usual caveats, e.g. about colliding/merging galaxies).

5. Lerner puts great store in observations of a small number of high velocity ('halo') white dwarfs observed recently. He shouldn't, and should know better ... the various microlensing surveys constrain any such populations to levels far below 'baryonic matter in the halo is sufficient to account for spiral galaxy rotation curves' (as do the various deep HST observations), and only the most irresponsible extrapolations of the actual, independently verified, astronomical observations would suggest they could anyway.




If I have missed any of your refutations of plasma cosmology, please add them to the list. And may I recommend you write up your findings disproving plasma cosmology, and submit it to be published and peer reviewed in a journal of your choice. Thats how science works after all, and you'd be doing what no-one so far has been able to do. That way any plasma cosmologist could respond to it in the future, which would certainly save me the time :D

And I would consider rethinking a couple of those points. Especially the ones about dark gnomes proving that PC is wrong for example.... they could end up backfiring on you....
 
Last edited:
JEROME DA GNOME said:
What exactly are your credentials that you so blatantly malign the honesty and integrity of scientists?

Your not one of those wish you could have beens, are you?
Click to expand...

Hi,
I am not a wannabe, I am who I am, and that includes education, training and practice in the use of census based statitistics. I notice you didn't answer the point Jerome which is this.

If Arp et al. want their correlation to be taken seriously then they have to have a control group of a 'normative' sample. You don't know how medications are tested don't you, I assume you are also familiar with the process to determine health risk factors. To determine an incidence of some causal factor (or the possibility thereof) you have to compare you 'experiemental' sample (in this case the Arp galaxies) to representative sample that is the base line event of possible occurance.

You can not just count the number of heart attacks in a population and determine anything, you have to be able to compare the difference between your test sample and the 'normative' population.

You know what JDG, don't pull that troll stuff, I am not maligning the honesty and integrity of these people. I am saying that the methodlogy they use is flawed. It can be remidied very easily.

I suggest you check out your browser search engine and enter the terms 'sample bias' and 'sample error'. Even smart people can make poor choices, like not using a control group in the protocol.

Address the issue, they need to determine the actual frequency of occurance of QSOs around galaxies and random spots on the sky before they can say they have an extraordinary association. But to do that you have to know the ordinary rate of association.

Smart people, and I think Arp is one, and Gutierez as well, can make poor choices, like not using a control group. Heck Schleiman dug right through the Troy he was looking for.

You seem to be taking some umbrage at my suggestion that the protocol is wrong. Who looks dogmatic when they do that?

They could just do the normative study and get it over with. Instead of counting QSOs and pretending they have an association.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom