Excuse me, but ...
Lerner's paper "Galactic Model of Element Formation", which you recommended, is very clear - only H is primordial
But you said "as is required in PC - recall that
all elements other than He are primordial", which
is wrong.
Lerner has come up with a perfectly viable method to create the other elements, the ones associated with the usual 'proof' of the BB. So by comparing theories, we can see which one is the most accurate. No false dichotomies involved.
Its a similar approach to rees idea for example (
ref), an alternative is offered to the CMB that does not utilize a Big Bang, it does not require a creation event to explain it. He shows that this assumption can account for this just as accurately than the current explanation, from local stars, just like Lerner does with galaxies and stars. Another more recent paper (that cites Lerners observations {ref[24]}, page 2,) also agrees that a local creation method for CMB, which is consistent with Lerners hypothesis, and they say is far more likely (
ref). This is very similar to what Lerner is proposing with his element production method.
And before you start shouting "false dichotomy", I really need to sort out your continual incorrect use of this. Something is counted as a false dichotomy if you simply falsify one object, and then use
only this falsification to support an alternative explanation, without giving any details on what the alternative is.
For Example, I said: "Either there is another EM force at work here other than gravity on large scales, or you have to invoke tonnes of mysterious matter to enable gravity to account for this shape."
To which you shouted false dichotomy.
That is not a false dichotomy. I gave two clear choices, and since the main two forces that are contenders for this are gravity and EM forces (although you will deny EM forces play any role at all), there
is a clear defined choice to be made between them, and I have not ruled out any other possibilities.
This is a false dichotomy: "you have to invoke tonnes of mysterious matter to enable gravity to account for this shape, so therefore all of plasma cosmology has to be right."
In the first case, I gave a reason why this the standard description could be wrong, EM forces can likely account for this discrepancy. I did not exclude any other possibility; I left it quite open, saying that one of the plasma cosmology interpreatations could account for this. If you provide a reason to back up one of the theories then it is fine. If we follow your logic than whenever you compare two rival theories it is a false dichotomy; you could never find out which theory is correct as you cant compare them. So it is not a false dichotomy, an alternative explanation has been put forward, and a comparison between the two can be made.
Lerners model does not treat every element other than He as primordial. It also sort of depends on what you are defining the word primordial to mean in his model, it really takes on a slightly different meaning, as there is no real 'initial' creation event like the Big Bang theory to make it that clear cut. Galaxies are essentially transient phenomenon.
There is a universal relationship between the density of plasma in which they condensed 
and the distance (r) between condensed objects. This can be shown well over 15 orders of magnitude for mass, all the way from modern laboratory experiments to stars and galaxies. In plasma cosmology the main reason for the existence of this relationship is the role played in the process of gravitational condensation by plasma vortices which have typical ion velocities (me/mp)3/4c. The ion collision distance is 1 x 1019n-1 cm, or nr = 1 x 1019/cm2, where condensations are separated by distances r. You can otherwise state this relationship as M = 1.8n-2 where M is the mass of the condensed object in solar masses. This implies that in the early stages of galactic condensation, when the average plasma density in the galaxy was lower than at present, the average mass of the formed stars that constitute it was higher.
You can use this relationship in a simplified model of star formation to determine approximately how much helium and heavy elements were created during the formation of a galaxy. This includes the creation of the elements often used to 'prove' the Big Bang. And other element observations are included too, Deuterium abundance, Oxygen abundance, carbon, and other elements can be accounted for using a cloud contracting in the axial direction in the plane of rotation by spiral radial magnetic filaments.
At any given instant, B/n is a constant throughout the contracting plasma. Since the currents converge toward the center and flow out along the axis, you get B = 0.2 I/r, where I is the galactic current and r is the distance from the axis. Density, n, thus also decreases outwards from the center, with the heaviest stars forming in the least dense regions, furthest out. Incoming filaments are sufficiently numerous that in any given annulus star formation is occurring whenever previous generations of stars have released their gas to the interstellar medium or have not yet been formed. That is, stars of an appropriate mass constitute essentially all the plasma mass in each annulus, so the situation simply along a single radial slice can be considered.
For the He, we know from stellar evolution theory that the amount of helium produced for stars of various masses, varying from abut 10% for M = 12M
s, to 3% for M = 5M
s
[latex]He(M)=\left|^{tf}_{t0}F(M)M^{0.5}n_{i}0.375t_{1}L_{t}^{-1}(1-e^{\frac{Lt}{t1}})e^{\frac{t}{t1}[/latex]
where F is the fraction of mass converted to helium by stars of mass M and He(M) is the total fraction of the galactic mass converted to helium by these stars. The beginning time to is defined by the point at which the shock wave first forms, that is when V, the velocity of the plasma past the filament exceeds V
a the Alfven velocity.
Now, [latex]V_{a}=\frac{I}{10h^{0.5}n^{0.5}m^{0.5}_{p}r}[/latex] where mP is the proton mass, and I the galactic current. Studies by Beck and others (
Ref - IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science) have shown that galactic magnetic fields and currents can be related to a galaxy's mass per unit surface area, and thus to its orbital velocity. From these results, the empirical relationship I = 1.5 x 10
-4V
2G
-1 can be derived.
Using this for the Milky Way, V
2/R
m = 1.2 x 10
-8 cm/sec and n, = 0.35 (taking Mg = 2 x10
11Ms, Rm = 5 x 10
22 cm). Substituting these values into the previous relationships, and integrating over a mass range 4Ms < M < 12Ms, and solving the equations simultaneously, you get as a solution t
1 = 8 x 10
15 second (260 My) and He = 0.225, in excellent agreement with observation.
Most significantly, since He varies inversely with V
2/Rm the observed upper limits on V
2/Rm, sets lower limits to He and it is these minimum He values which have given reasonably consistent figures for 'primordial' helium abundance.
For the carbon abundances, using the above relationships, Integrating this over t and M you get (with a bit more work in between);
C = (5.6 x 10
-19 -1.1 x 10
-19n
0.5) t
i
= 4 . 5 x 10
-3 - 8.5 x 10 -4n
0.5
= 0 .0042 OK?
This is in good agreement with observations of 0.004-0.005.
For the Oxygen abundance, using the same calculation, and adjusting the rates of production accordingly, you get a value of ~0.018. It should also be noted that He ions will be able to migrate out of the galaxies to enrich the immediate surrounding medium much more easily than the heavier elements such as carbon and oxygen. It is out of this He-enriched but heavy element poor medium that dwarf galaxies form.
For the Deuterium abundance, using a value of 1 Gev of energy is for each deuterium production, z of the energy goes into the production of deuterium and the current abundance should be in the area of 2 x 10
-5. There is a close linear correlation between radio power generated by galaxies and IR thermal radiation, presumably derived from young massive stars. If we take as a measure of total cosmic ray production (twice radiated power) 3 x 10
19f (1.49 GHz) (the flux at that frequency) you find that about 1.2% of thermonuclear yield is in the form of cosmic rays, which yields 20 Kev per hydrogen atom in cosmic ray energy (where the 1 Gev comes from above, which is, co-incidentally, roughly the peak value for rays from the milky way, and very close to the average for most cosmic rays (
ref))
....And the other elements are in various other publications....
The fractal scaling relationship of dimension 2, that was a key prediction of plasma cosmology, and has been independantly confirmed recently, shouldn't you say?
Er, no.
As I have already said (do you need me to cite the post numbers?), results from SDSS, 2dF, WMAP, etc are clear ... the large scale structure of the observed universe is inconsistent with a "
fractal scaling relationship of dimension 2".
I would appreciate it if you could take the trouble to read the posts I write.
Er, no. You have this completely backwards. The results from SDSS are infact very strong evidence of the fractal scaling relationship of dimension 2 predicted by plasma cosmology.
Since i've taken the time to respond to your above points, I may aswell make a start on your list of the "evidence against plasma cosmology", and will start with your very first point.
You stated:
1. Observations show that the universe has a structure that is inconsistent with Lerner's fractal scaling relationship.
Here is an SDSS PR showing the observed large-scale structure;
here is the corresponding paper.
The SDSS survey that you point to as an inconsistency is in fact further confirmation of this prediction by plasma cosmology proponents. For example, in this publication (
L. Pietronero, 2005), titled "
Basic properties of galaxy clustering in the light of recent results from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey", Pietronero and his colleagues note that;
"The recent SDSS results for these statistics are in good agreement with those obtained by us through analyses of many previous samples, confirming in particular that the galaxy distribution is well described by a fractal dimension D ~ 2 up to a scale of at least 20 Mpc/h.", the exact value for the fractal dimension that plasma cosmology proponents predicted years back. Further support for this conclusion has been offered by Yurij Baryshev et al, (
Fractal Approach to Large-Scale Galaxy Distribution 2005) "
modern extensive redshift-based 3-d maps have revealed the ``hidden'' fractal dimension of about 2, and have confirmed superclustering at scales even up to 500 Mpc (e.g. the Sloan Great Wall). On scales, where the fractal analysis is possible in completely embedded spheres, a power--law density field has been found. The fractal dimension D =2.2 +- 0.2 was directly obtained from 3-d maps and R_{hom} has expanded from 10 Mpc to scales approaching 100 Mpc. In concordance with the 3-d map results, modern all sky galaxy counts in the interval 10^m - 15^m give a 0.44m-law which corresponds to D=2.2 within a radius of 100h^{-1}_{100} Mpc. We emphasize that the fractal mass--radius law of galaxy clustering has become a key phenomenon in observational cosmology.". And another paper with similar conclusions based on a wide range of redshift surveys;
Fractal Holography: a geometric re-interpretation of cosmological large scale structure - General Relativity and Quantum Cosmology
The principle parameter to the estimated from the observations is the fractal dimension D (as i'm sure you know). This reduces to enable estimating how the average number density of galaxies changes with the volume of a sphere with the centre at the observer. This quantity obeys the law: [latex]\left\langle{n}\right\rangle\proptor^{D-3},0<D\leq3[/latex] When dealing with a uniform poisson distribution, D = 3, giving a constant average density. Otherwise it goes down and in the limit of an infinite sphere reduces to zero. The latter situation is just the case of a fractal universe, and the fractal dimension of ~two predicted by PC proponents seems to fit very closely with recent observations.
One thing that is very hard to conceptualize with fractal cosmology is that if the universe around us is of a fractal nature, a simple looking into deep space would not reveal it. This is an important property of an infinite fractal system. If you are looking from any specific occupied point the system looks the same, regardless of the direction you are looking, sometimes referred to as 'conditional isotropy'. The immediate consequence for an infinite fractal cosmos is that it will produce the same picture of the sky as the homogenous universe.
"
Numerous estimates from the large number of galactic catalogues that exist so far estimate a value of D = 2±0.2, within distance of roughly 50h-1 Mpc. This D = ~2 might have remarkable cosmic significance. This is the border value which just ensures, within the static hierarchical cosmos, the compact projection of the galaxy spatial distribution onto the celestial sphere, what is tantamount to the isotropy as observed on the sky." (Petar Grujik, 2006)
(also see some of the links in my previous post on fractal nature, and fractal scaling of plasma currents and filaments, that was dismissed before for merely being a "spam attack"
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3681728&postcount=105 )
Zeuzzz, please ...
You have made it abundantly clear that, for you, the logic of false dichotomy is acceptable in PC.
Oh yes, your personal version of false dichotomy, where competing theories are not allowed to compare their ideas, or falsify the other.
If I propose a viable alternative it is not a false dichotomy. If I did not have an alternative, that would just be using the same idiotic strategy the ID'ers use; they 'prove' science is wrong, therefore, god *must* exist. I propose a viable alternative scientific theory. See the difference?
You have also, many many times, shown a pretty astonishing degree of ignorance of the relevant details of the ΛCDM models you criticise. Now parodies from the likes of JdG or ynot are perhaps understandable (they do not seem to have much of an education in textbook physics), but for you it's hard to avoid a conclusion of borderline trolling (given your admitted physics fluency).
Like what? Cant come up with any examples hey?
And PC does not ignore GR, it includes GR as a vital component. Alfven wasn;t a big fan, but that was before the evidence was conclusive, so thats an acceptable position to take back then. Modern PC proponents use GR all the time.
Really?!?
I may have missed it, but none of the Lerner or Peratt papers I read - which you recommended as being the core of contemporary PC, remember - mention it at all.
You have missed it. And I find it absolutely amazing that you have, considering that relativity is included in the majority of their publications. I am beginning to get the distinct impression that you still have not read much PC material at all.
On the evolution of interacting, magnetized, galactic plasmas Peratt, A. L.; Green, J. C., Astrophysics and Space Science (ISSN 0004-640X)
The advent of three-dimensional, electromagnetic, and fully relativistic particle simulations allows a detailed study of a magnetized, rotating plasma, galaxy model. When two such models are simulated, an interaction yielding results resembling observational data from double radio sources, including the emission of synchrotron radiation, are obtained. Simulation-derived morphologies, radiation intensities, frequency spectra, and isophote patterns are directly compared to observations. The constituent plasma parameters associated with the source Cygnus A are found to be n(e) = 0.0018/cu cm, T = 2.8 keV, B = 20-30 gamm [.....]
Microwave generation from filamentation and vortex formation within magnetically confined electron beams Peter, William; Peratt, Anthony L, Physical Review Letters (ISSN 0031-9007),
The generation of microwaves from interacting vortices formed in thin magnetized electron beams is investigated experimentally and with three-dimensional electromagnetic particle simulations. Fine-detail photographs of relativistic and nonrelativistic beams show that vortex formation transcends 12 orders of magnitude in beam current. The simulations show a burst of microwave radiation from a rapid magnetic line connection and breaking between vortices when the vortex structure is well defined.
Plasma and the Universe: Large Scale Dynamics, Filamentation, and Radiation Peratt, A. L., Astrophysics and Space Science, Volume 227
One of the earliest predictions about the morphology of the universe is that it be filamentary (Alfvén, 1950). This prediction followed from the fact that volumewise, the universe is 99.999% matter in the plasma state. When the plasma is energetic, it is generally inhomogeneous with constituent parts in motion. Plasmas in relative motion are coupled by the currents they drive in each other and nonequilibrium plasma often consists of current-conducting filaments.
The evidence for electrical currents in cosmic plasma -Peratt, Anthony L. IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science (ISSN 0093-3813)
With the advent of fully three-dimensional, fully electromagnetic, fully relativistic, particle-in-cell simulations, investigations of Birkeland currents and magnetic-field-aligned electric fields have become possible in plasmas not accessible to in situ measurement, i.e., in plasmas having the dimensions of galaxies or systems of galaxies. The necessity for a three-dimensional electromagnetic approach derives from the fact that the evolution of magnetized plasmas involves complex geometries, intense self-fields, nonlinearities, and explicit time-dependence. A comparison of the synchrotron radiation properties of simulated currents to those of extragalactic sources provides observational evidence for galactic-dimensional Birkeland currents.
3-dimensional particle-in-cell simulations of spiral galaxies Peratt, A. L.; Peter, W.; Snell, C. M. Galactic and intergalactic magnetic fields; Proceedings of the 140th Symposium of IAU, Heidelberg
The advent of 3D electromagnetic, and fully relativistic particle simulations allows a detailed study of a magnetized plasma galaxy model. When two such models are simulated, an interaction yielding results resembling observational data from double radio sources, including the emission of synchrotron radiation, are obtained.
High power rf amplifiers for accelerator applications: The large orbit gyrotron and the high current, space charge enhanced relativistic klystron - Stringfield, R.M. ; Fazio, M.V. ; Rickel, D.G. ; Kwan, T.J.T. ; Peratt, A.L., Conference: Linear accelerator conference, Albuquerque, NM (USA), 9-14
Los Alamos is investigating a number of high power microwave sources for their potential to power advanced accelerators. Included in this investigation are the large orbit gyrotron amplifier and oscillator (LOG) and the relativistic klystron amplifier (RKA). LOG amplifier development is newly underway. Electron beam power levels of 3 GW, 70 ns duration,
Wrangling over the Bang Robert Herman, Scott Nicholson, Halton Arp, Eric J. Lerner, James Hartley, Tom Mandel, Paul A. Daugherty, M. E. Renshaw, William E. White, Tom Paskal, Anthony L. Peratt and Robert E. McDaniel
It will also satisfy precisely the Friedmann solutions of general
relativity It can account very well for all the facts the Big Bang explains[....]
Equilibrium of a high-current channel in the general theory of relativity - Meierovich, B. Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Physics, Volume 85, Issue 2, August 1997, pp.209-216
The condition for equilibrium of a high-current channel taking account of both electromagnetic and gravitational interactions of the charges with an arbitrary drift-to-light velocity ratio is derived from the equations of Einstein's general theory of relativity. The relative motion appearing between the electron and ion subsystems as a result of the current flow gives rise to an additional gravitational attraction between these subsystems. This is a relativistic effect that cannot be obtained in the Newtonian approximation.
(paper derived from Peratts publication here;
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freeabs_all.jsp?arnumber=199545)
Want any more?
Excuse me, but ...
Worse, Lerner's fractal scaling is meant to apply to the universe as a whole, which in turn implies that GR is unimportant to the universe as a whole ...
Huh?
Relativity is a vital part of the physics of the plasma universe as used by PC proponents. It is just not used to explain the Big Bang, or the origin of the universe, as in PC, there is no origin, for all we know the universe is infinite and static (I know this is very hard to conceptualize, this is the fundamental difference between the two cosmologies that people seem to be unable to comprehend).
Maybe a brief overview of the two approaches to cosmology would a be a good end note..
From reading much of Alfven and his colleagues material, it has become apparent that there are two very distinct ways to approach cosmology/cosmogony. One is starting from an event in the past and trying to work out what the future should be from this event, called the prophetic approach, or there is an actualistic approach, which entails paying attention to what processes are occurring in the present time and extrapolating back from this to try to deduce older states. In the prophetic approach an assumption is made about the 'creation' of what we observe, and then observations in the present are used to try to prove this prophetic event; this is how the Big Bang theory works for example. In the actualistic approach no such assumption about creation is needed, although it does not rule out the possibility of such an event.
To quote Alfven (he puts it much better than me!), from "
cosmology in the plasma universe" - Laser and Particle Beams (ISSN 0263-0346), vol. 6, Aug. 1988, p. 389-398.
Prophetic or actualistic approach to the history of the Universe. When discussing how to approach the cosmogonic problem (origin and evolution of the solar system) Gustaf Arrhenius, who is a geologist, pointed out that when the geological history of the Earth is studied the actualistic approach is very valuable. This principle says: the present is the key to the past. In other words we should not approach a historical problem in science by making a guess about how the conditions were in a certain region several billion years ago because the probability that such a guess is correct is very close to zero. Instead we should start from the present conditions. In fact, during the ages innumerable such guesses have been made. They have survived to our times only in cases when the guesses have been claimed to derive from divine inspiration. This means that the guesses must have been made by great religious prophets. Hence we find such guesses included as important parts of holy religious scriptures.
Hence there are two different ways of approaching the prehistory of the present state of the plasma universe or part of it.
7.1. The prophetic approach
A guess is made about the state very long ago, and this is made credible by prophetic authority. This approach often assumes that there was a 'creation' at a certain time, and it is often claimed that we know more about this event than about somewhat more recent times.
7.2. The actualistic approach
We start from the observed present state and try to extrapolate backwards in time to increasingly more ancient states. From this follows that the further backwards we go the larger is the uncertainty about the state. This approach does not necessarily lead to a 'creation' at a certain time, but it does not either exclude this possibility. However, in principle it is also reconcilable with a Universe which is `ungenerated and indestructable' as Aristoteles put it. […..]
Its obvious (to me anyway) that the actualistic approach is by far the better method. For example, the prophetic type of approach states that the universe was created ex nihilo in a singular point of time, ie, the Big Bang, and then tries to prove this prediction, whereas the actualistic approach states that the matter in our galaxy may either have existed for an infinite time or it may have been created at a time much earlier than the Hubble time. We do not currently have the knowledge to make definitive statements about the origin of the entire universe, the question is left more open; for all we know we live in an infinite static universe. (see this for starters;
http://arxiv.org/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0509/0509611.pdf)
Another similar, more recent, publication discusses this matter, and puts it in more comprehendible terms. They overview fractal cosmologies (of which plays a role in PC), and the new evidences for them, while at the same time comparing the prophetic type of approach of mainstream cosmology with the new emerging actualistic approach (cosmology proper).
Fractal cosmologies today
An overview of the state of arts of the fractal cosmology will be given, with emphasis on the most recent discoveries in the field. New observational evidence will be presented, as well as advantages in theoretical investigations. Particular attention will be paid to the relevant epistemological implications of the concept of hierarchical cosmos, and the status of the model within the present day cosmology will be discussed.
Contemporary cosmology may be divided into two main sectors. First, it is the observational cosmology (cosmology proper) [[plasma cosmology type approach]], based on the current empirical evidence via astrophysical data and concomitant theoretical models which match more or less the observational evidence. The other refers to cosmology (In wider sense) and relies almost exclusively on mathematical constructions, based on some fundamental physical theories, mainly on general relativity (GR) and quantum field theories (QFT). While cosmological model are worked out within the so-called standard model (SM) and may be considered as a part of positive science, cosmological models, even paradigms, are subject to wild speculations, which can be hardly taken for objective science (Grujic, 2006). This qualitative distinction between observational and speculative cosmologies should not be taken as a sign that the first one is immune of difficulties, both methodological and interpretive ones. As we shall see, there is often no direct path between the observed quantities and theoretical constructs we call cosmological models. It opens a rather vast space for controversies and disputes among leading astrophysicists and cosmologies of today. [....]
And that controversy he mentions is what this thread seems to be about
Although, I really want to start a new thread with a better OP when I have the time, this one seems to be descending into too much of a confrontational style for my liking, although the valid contributions can be kept.
And, to restate my last point (before I got distracted with this reply);
And be patient, there are answers to your previous "evidence against plasma cosmology" points, so i wouldn't spend too much time on other supposed problems with PC until I have addressed your previous ones. But its not going to be any time soon, as i said, the real world is beckoning at the moment
Meanwhile, I'll let you give yourselves a pat on the back and stick to your conviction that you have falsified PC completely for the next month or so, but, to paraphrase good old arnie; I'll be back.
