Plasma Cosmology - Woo or not

You know, DRD, I'd be a lot more impressed if that major announcement tomorrow by NASA was an observation that explained what comprises dark matter and energy and how they originated ... rather than just the discovery of some more baryonic PLASMA. :D
 
What do you think about the anomalies in the redshift observed in galaxies such as NGC 7603?

Page 2.

Still no answer to the question. Only questions to me as to what a "redshift anomaly" is. In fact some are following me to other threads asking the same question as an attempt to malign my knowledge. I find it revealing that attacks occur instead of an answer to the question.


The Woo believers have been shown to be frauds.

:solved2
 
... snip ...

[Note: my posts dont need to use the sly comments, personal attacks and invoke peoples emotions, like yours continually do. You really should reconsider your conduct here DRD, it does you no favors]
Zeuzzz,

If you:

* persistently continue to not answer (refuse to answer?) direct questions asked of the posts you yourself have written, on content that is directly relevant

* persistently mis-represent what others who have taken the trouble to actually read the material you provide wrote

* frequently engage in 'drive by' spamming (e.g. on JdG's 'redshifts'), i.e. obviously do not even bother to determine the context before posting

* change the key definitions (e.g. "Plasma Cosmology") you use, several times, in the course of just one thread, without acknowledgment

... and so on

why do you think you deserve respect?

Prediction: Your next post will likely contain lost of bolding, angry faces, huge text, and personal comments mixed in with a few ad hominems.
None, none, none, none, none.

Par for the (PC) course, don't you think?

Now back to the scheduled programme ... an examination of whether Plasma Cosmology is woo or not, where "Plasma Cosmology" (PC) is defined as the published papers of Peratt, Lerner, their co-authors, and (for necessary background) Hannes Alfvén.

No wait!

PC also includes any works, published or unpublished, by Ari Brynjolfsson, Thomas Smid, Don Scott, Halton Arp, Wallace Thornhill, Martin Bell, David Talbott, William Tifft, Immanuel Velikovsky, Cynthia Whitney, ... that Zeuzzz decides (on a whim?) to add (fortunately, in the branch of alternative science called 'plasma cosmology' there is an extreme tolerance of internal inconsistency (though perhaps not to the extent JdG is quite comfortable with)).
 
You know, DRD, I'd be a lot more impressed if that major announcement tomorrow by NASA was an observation that explained what comprises dark matter and energy and how they originated ... rather than just the discovery of some more baryonic PLASMA. :D
You know BAC, I'd be a lot more impressed if you actually focussed on a serious discussion of the material you choose to post ...

After all, unless you a fully paid up, card carrying member of 'the logic of false dichotomy is a core part of my version of science' club, and/or the 'internal inconsistencies at the core of my cherished theories are of no significance' club, you'd surely be deeply troubled by a certain BeAChooser's persistent failure to answer directly relevant questions on the material he chooses to post, wouldn't you?
 
What do you think about the anomalies in the redshift observed in galaxies such as NGC 7603?
Page 2.

Still no answer to the question. Only questions to me as to what a "redshift anomaly" is. In fact some are following me to other threads asking the same question as an attempt to malign my knowledge. I find it revealing that attacks occur instead of an answer to the question.


The Woo believers have been shown to be frauds.
Thank you JdG ...

I hadn't expected to see such an extraordinarily bold assertion of ignorance! :p

But then, since you have never answered any of my questions concerning how you determine whether something is "evidence" or not, who cares whether your understanding of "redshift anomaly" is the same (or similar) to that of anyone else's (or not)? I mean, such understanding cannot be used to hold a meaningful discussion on the topic, can it now?
 
Redshift Anomalies

It looks like people want to include redshift anomalies as part of Plasma Cosmology. So...

Redshift anomalies are the consequence of statements by various authors (e.g. Halton Arp) that there are statistical correlations between high redshift quasars and some low redshift galaxies (see the Arp objects, QSOs, Statistics thread for a discussion of the statistical techniques used). The correlation suggests that the quasar redshift should be close to the galaxy's redshift and this is an anomaly. The explanation given for this is that quasars are actually ejected from the galaxies and have an intrinsic redshift (see the Hoyle-Narlikar Theory thread for a mechanism that Arp supports).

So can we take it as a prediction of Plasma Cosmology that all quasars have intrinsic redshifts?
Or is the "plasma redshift" theory(which does not need redshift anomalies) part of Plasma Cosmology instead?
Or is it both or even other theories such as tired light?
 
Last edited:
Which peer reviewed publications present the physical mechanisms for "dark matter" and "dark energy"? In which publication, under any brand, are the lab experiments verifying this/these mechanism(s) published?

:D
Spot on BAC, spot on.

You are aware, I presume, that a core PC principle is that things which have not been observed 'in the lab' either do not exist or cannot exist or are wrong?

For example, no neutron stars in the lab, so neutron stars do not exist (ditto black holes), in PC anyway.

I have explored this in another JREF thread, but with the PC perspective explicitly excluded.

Now, with this implicit 'logic of false dichotomy is OK' diversion over, back to the scheduled programme of examining whether PC is woo or not ...
 
It looks like people want to include redshift anomalies as part of Plasma Cosmology. So...

Redshift anomalies are the consequence of statements by various authors (e.g. Halton Arp) that there are statistical correlations between high redshift quasars and some low redshift galaxies (see the Arp objects, QSOs, Statistics thread for a discussion of the statistical techniques used). The correlation suggests that the quasar redshift should be close to the galaxy's redshift and this is an anomaly. The explanation given for this is that quasars are actually ejected from the galaxies and have an intrinsic redshift (see the Hoyle-Narlikar Theory thread for a mechanism that Arp supports).

So can we take it as a prediction of Plasma Cosmology that all quasars have intrinsic redshifts?
Or is the "plasma redshift" theory(which does not need redshift anomalies) part of Plasma Cosmology instead?
Or is it both or even other theories such as tired light?
You forgot a key question ...

Given that 'confirmation in the lab' is central to at least some versions of PC, and given that so many of the authors Zeuzzz has cited apparently embrace 'intrinsic redshift' without a qualm, is it reasonable to conclude that internal inconsistency is not a significant characteristic of PC?
 
Last edited:
But there are signs of interaction.

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0409215 states that "from the optical spectra of the QSO and interstellar gas of NGC 7319 at z = .022 we show that it is very likely that the QSO is interacting with the interstellar gas." And there is a clearly visible plasma filament (jet) pointing from the core of the galaxy to the quasar in that case. You just chose not to see it.

In the López-Corredoira, Martin and Carlos M. Gutiérrez (2002) paper, “Two Emission Line Objects with z>0.2 in the Optical Filament Apparently Connecting the Seyfert Galaxy NGC 7603 to Its Companion,” they that the high redshift HII galaxy closest to NGC 7603 is "warped towards NGC 7603" and the other has a faint tail that "could indicate that the material in the filament interacts with the galaxies."

And consider NGC 3628? http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache....gz+NGC+3628+quasars&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=5&gl=us notes the that three quasars at the base of the east-north-east plume are coincident with the start of an optical jet. Two more quasars align along what looks to be the opposite side major axis. Three more quasars lie in the southern plume along the minor axis. Two other quasars lie next to one another along a thickening of a southern HI plume, one being at the tip of plume. The article concludes "these quasars are not only aligned with the plumes, but positioned along contour nodes. This is strongly indicative of physical association, and implies that these quasars and HI plumes have come out of NGC 3628 in the same physical process." There are also also narrow x-ray filaments coming from the galaxy on the minor axis sides. The authors state that the location of one quasar is at the very tip of one x-ray filament and that alone has a probability of 2 x 10^^-4. The next quasar in toward the nucleus is centered on the x-ray filament as well. And at a slightly greater distance on the opposite minor axis side of the galaxy from the Z = 0.995 quasar is a quasar of Z = 0.984. The authors note that "These redshifts are closely matched - a characteristic of many previous pairs of quasars across active galaxies - and demonstrate how unlikely it is that they are unassociated background objects."

It's observations like these, David, that your side simply ignores or claims don't exist. :D

Hiya BAC, i will read them on the morrow, two sets of emission lines and some vague optical alignment.

Not more bad statistics I hope.

Arividerci!
 
Last edited:
Which peer reviewed publications present the physical mechanisms for "dark matter" and "dark energy"? In which publication, under any brand, are the lab experiments verifying this/these mechanism(s) published?

:D

Just like the dark explanation of your grasp of a posteriri statistics.

Care to defend the magnetic fields that aren't strong enough to support your suggested model of 'flat rotation curves' for galaxies. Funny how you just ignore the critique of it, what size charge are you going to need on a star so a micro gauss field can accelerate it and make the flat rotation curve?

Or wil you start the magic shifto chango and say, well the stars aren't accelerated, it is the plasma?

What about your suggestion that the flat rotation curve was imparted during the formation of the galaxy.

You ignore so many critiques of your posts.

Good night Knight of the Plasma.
 
Last edited:
Page 2.

Still no answer to the question. Only questions to me as to what a "redshift anomaly" is. In fact some are following me to other threads asking the same question as an attempt to malign my knowledge. I find it revealing that attacks occur instead of an answer to the question.


The Woo believers have been shown to be frauds.
Nope , your not a fraud at all.
 

except for one little thing, how do the boffos you cite come up with this little gem?

"The probability of three background galaxies of any type with apparent B-magnitudes up to 16.6, 21.1 and 22.1 (the observed magnitudes, extinction correction included) being randomly projected on the filament of the fourth galaxy (NGC 7603) is ≈ 3× 10-9"

Oh, I see by assuming that QSOs are evenly scattered across the sky and that they are evenly spaced. Which any idiot who knows what the word 'filament' means would know doesn't mean that they occur in a little grid pattern. Since they didn't run a control sample, there figure might as well be an Enochian calling table to summon Dr. Dee's angels. That is where it belongs, with the QBL and other mystic arts that have no significance.

Might as well be using Ganzfeld statisics and counting bleeding fairies.

What is the normative control group that this statistic is compared to?

Oh thats right in Jerome Science and Statistics you can just pretend you don't need a control group!

So can you answer a simple question, how can thier method tell a random placement from a causal one?

Of course you won't answer the question, because you can't. Their method can not give a significant p becuase they don't use normative distrubutions and frequencies of distribution.

Like I said JdG they would be laughed out of a disease control conference. So pretend that your little magic formula means something Jerome, it doesn't, it is a fraud, using statistics like this you would never find any meaning in correlation. And medicine would still be denying that obesity causes diabetes (type II) in certain populations, or that asprin has any benefit in preventing strokes.

Why? because a posteriori statistics aren't useful in sampling populations.


When your theory gets brave enough to do comparative analyss then it can pretend to be a theory rather than a pleasant fairie tale.
 
Last edited:
The Woo believers have been shown to be frauds.

You mean, just like how you "showed" that I "failed" when I said hydrogen bombs and tokamaks involve fusion?

You're ignorant of even the grade-school level basics of science.
 
Last edited:
(continued)
DeiRenDopa said:
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.
That may be so ...

... and it suffers the same fatal confrontation with observation as Lerner's model of the CMB does (plus some more of its own, no doubt).

Back to whether only H is primordial or not, in the model presented in Lerner's 1989 paper ...
... snip ...

Lerners model does not treat every element other than He as primordial.
Indeed.

It treats every element other than H (hydrogen) 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.
OK ...

So when you finally get around to addressing my posts on Lerner's model, I hope you will address how galaxies can be "essentially transient phenomenon", created out of pure hydrogen, create lots of He and metals, ... and leave no He or metals in the IGM (inter-galactic medium) for future generations of galaxies to form from ...

There is a universal relationship between the density of plasma in which they condensed (n) 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.
May I ask what the source of this, and subsequent, material (in the parts of you post I'm quoting) is?
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.
(emphasis added)

Were created from what?

Here's what Lerner's 1989 paper says (I added emphasis):

Here a galaxy is formed from the gravitational collapse of a filamentary or cylindrical cloud, ...

At any given instant, there are four distinct regions ...

1) In the outer disk region ... (It should be noted that we are here dealing with stars that are initially pure hydrogen ...

2) In the outer cylinder, ... , no star formation has yet taken place and the plasma there is pure hydrogen

3) In the inner cylinder, ... the pure H of region II is processed ...

4) Part of the inner cylinder ... This inner disk region forms stars [...] out of material heavily enriched by the region I massive stars.

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 = 12Ms, to 3% for M = 5Ms
[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 Va 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 10-4V2G-1 can be derived.


Using this for the Milky Way, V2/Rm = 1.2 x 10-8 cm/sec and n, = 0.35 (taking Mg = 2 x1011Ms, Rm = 5 x 1022 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 t1 = 8 x 1015 second (260 My) and He = 0.225, in excellent agreement with observation.
So ...

... in other words, all the He forms from H, in stars, over a period of ~260 My ...

Most significantly, since He varies inversely with V2/Rm the observed upper limits on V2/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 10-19n0.5) ti

= 4 . 5 x 10-3 - 8.5 x 10 -4n0.5
= 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.
Hmm ...

Galaxies form stars out of pure H, produce He, which then migrates out "to enrich the immediate surrounding medium", from which dwarf galaxies form ...

And once galaxies stop forming (the medium being used up), and stars die, the universe becomes cold and dark.

And before galaxies formed, the universe was full of pure H (and also cold and dark).

Somehow, ~13 billion years ago, a magical, once-off event occurred - galaxies began to form ... over the infinite time before then, no galaxies formed, and in the infinite time after galaxies stop forming (as they must, there's no source of new, pure H, is there?) ...?

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 1019f (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))
Lerner said something similar.

However, your source doesn't seem to confirm it - can you clarify please?

....And the other elements are in various other publications....

... snip ...
In conclusion then ...

... it would seem that, according to Lerner, all elements other than H are formed during or after the formation of galaxies, and that the galaxies all form from pure H (other than some dwarf galaxies which form later).

Further, before ~13 billion years ago, there were no galaxies, just pure H.

Or, saying this a slightly different way, only H is primordial ...

(to be continued)
 
Please present your credentials.

All you do is name-call any published scientist that you disagree with.

I didn't realize boffo is name calling, I thought it was like 'wonder boy', I did not realize that it was a 'long hair' or 'egghead' appelation.

Boffo retraacted.

My credentials are that I have a brain, and I engage in critical thought and I have a passing familiarity with census based population statistics.

The paper you cited uses archaic statistics which have no meaning. They even mention a Poisson distribution, and when the numbers of QSOs and AGN number in the hundreds of thousands, that is rather telling of ignorance of statistical theory after 1920 or so.

So I see you haven't brought anything to the table again"

Can you put 'sample error' and 'sample bias' in your browser?

Can you tell me how the method they use can determine a random placement from a causal one?

Credentials don't matter if your protocol has no meaning or significance.

Defend your priesthood Jerome, it makes me look better when you show that you have no grasp of the critique I have presented. Here it is again:

They have no control group or baseline of comparison. So the statistics they present is meaningless.

And here is the solution that would give their math some legs:
Take a control sample or normative sample. Like 10000 random spot on the sky and 10000 non Arp galaxies then you would be able to say with some certainty if the association rises above the noise level of common occurrence.

Critique and follow up for replication presented.

You do know what science is don't you?
 
Last edited:
Nope BAC, no real signs of interaction, we have discussed the embedded QSO before, it is not the only way those emission lines could come about. And so 'possibility' and that is about it.

Why no other interactions, you hav ethis thing aquiring mass and no other signs.

more optical alignments in the other one, so 'it looks like a cosmic bunny', that does not mean it is a cosmic bunny. need more than optical alignment how about some x-ray sources, gravitational tides, motion (as determined by red shift) in the stream, or any thing other than 'it looks like a rabbit'. Sorry not very interesting.

A possibility but nothing conclusive, sorry. Nice try.
 
Zeuzzz said:
... snip ...

The question is: which of the models explains the shape of the most galaxies accurately, and which one does not need to add extra epicycles to explain this shape?

Answer: Peratts Model.

... snip ...
Missed a point on this the first time round ...

To repeat a question RC asked (and which Zeuzzz and BAC seem remarkably coy about actually answering): In which Peratt or Lerner paper(s) are the myriad observations which lead to the conclusion that the MW halo (and that of other spiral galaxies too) is dominated by CDM accounted for, using their PC model(s)?

Just so the question is quite clear:

-> I am NOT asking whether you, personally, like or dislike CDM

-> I am NOT asking you to do a comparison between one set of models and another (unless between different Peratt models, or Lerner models)

-> I am NOT asking for your personal commentary on the relevant observations

-> I AM asking for a quantitative account, by Peratt and/or Lerner

-> I AM asking about the full range of relevant observations (not a cherry-picked one or two).
Bump.

Reality Check has asked similar questions too.

No answers have been forthcoming, from either Zeuzzz or BeAChooser (and we all know JEROME DA GNOME has never, ever, cited any scientific papers, on any topic).

Would it be too much to ask you guys to state, explicitly, that you do not know of any such papers or Peratt, Lerner, or any of their co-authors?
 
(and we all know JEROME DA GNOME has never, ever, cited any scientific papers, on any topic).

Except in this thread on this page, post #282.

Why would you present such a blatant falsehood? This is evidence that you are a liar.
 
Last edited:
(continued)
... snip ...

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.

... snip ...
Thanks.

Kinda makes my point well, don't you think?

Step 1: declare - by fiat? - that there are only two games in town (call them "B" and "P").

Step 2: cherry-pick something about the one you like (P, say), and make up a story about something vaguely similar as it relates to the one you don't (B).

Step 3: write up a parody of B so that it seems inconsistent with observation, based on the story in Step 2; it's OK to lie, but try to ensure the lies are not blatant.

Step 4 (optional): list how well the cherry-picked aspect of P matches observation; unless you absolutely have to, don't use numbers.

Step 5: declare P is, obviously, so overwhelmingly superior to B that you can't understand why anyone still works on B.

Note that the logic of false dichotomy enters in Step 1: at its simplest the two other logical choices ('neither', 'both') are omitted; more realistically, the existence of any other alternatives is implicitly denied ... even if some may be well-established (in the case of PC proponents, for example, all steady-state cosmologies are thus, by omission, non-existent, even though there are many of them, and even though some may be very relevant to the cherry-picked aspect of Step 2).

There's a companion piece, not part of this particular faulty logic but often used with it by PC proponents: extreme selectivity when it comes to which observations to examine.

Take the observed shapes of spiral galaxies as an example. It may well be that Peratt's PC model, per his simulations, can produce shapes that resemble those of spiral galaxies, with a 'compare these two pictures/images' method. However, as we have known for a month or three now, Peratt's model has at least one fatal flaw, so unless and until those fatal flaws can be fixed, the similarity in shape is little more than an amusing curiosity. There are, after all, a great many other ways to produce shapes that do as well on the 'look at the pictures!' method - something like a rotating lawn sprinkler for example - yet no one seriously proposes most of these other ways, because they each have at least one fatal flaw.
 
Except in this thread on this page, post #282.

Why would you present such a blatant falsehood? This is evidence that you are a liar.
Well blow me down and call me Charlie! :eek:

Mark this day in your diaries!! There is specific, concrete evidence that JEROME DA GNOME does, in fact, read posts by DeiRenDopa!!! :jaw-dropp

Or maybe not ... perhaps it's just a supposition, or sophistry, or obfuscation, or off-topic BS.

You know what JdG, I was wrong, you have presented evidence that you have cited a scientific paper.

May I ask why you are so selective in responding to what I post?

For example, why is it that you have never* answered any of my questions on what criteria you use, preferably objective criteria, to decide if something is "evidence" or not?

* (as far as I know; if you have, in fact, answered any such, would you mind pointing me to those answers?)
 
Except in this thread on this page, post #282.

Why would you present such a blatant falsehood? This is evidence that you are a liar.


Oh, that makes you look capable of critical thought, I have discussed the errors in methodology in a paper you referenced that, so don't go on about credentials. Try talking about why it is not an error in methodology.

I admit the bit about Enochian and Dr. Dee was over the top, but the methodology is flawed and the results are insignificant.
 
(continued)
... snip ...
DeiRenDopa said:
Zeuzzz said:
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.
Two things to get us started:

1) As I said in another of my posts responding to this one of yours Zeuzzz, it seems that much of the text of your post is copied, maybe with some minor editing, from other sources. Is that so? And if so, would you mind citing those sources, for the text I am quoting in this post please?

2) Zeuzzz the spin-meister who needs new reading glasses is at it again!

Note that I referred specifically to a particular publication by the SDSS team (and the associated PR); you chose to mis-interpret that as a reference to the SDSS survey! :mad:

I'll grant you that you may not, yet, have grokked that 'large-scale structure' inextricably includes the meaning 'right up to the very edge of the observable universe', so while interpretation of some SDSS data may be consistent with a fractal dimension of ~2 up to some (modest) scale (~Mpc or ~tens of Mpc, say), that's only a quite narrow range of scales.
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.
Yeah Jones et al. do say that ...

However, I think you should have been a bit more careful, and
a) acknowledge that 'at least 20 Mpc/h' is quite modest with respect to the scales probed by SDSS (etc);
b) note that the Jones et al. (2005) paper is at least as much about how to derive the 3D distribution of mass from surveys such as SDSS as it is about fractal scaling (see Swanson et al. (2008), for example, on whether Jones et al. (2005) were right or not about 'luminosity bias')
c) enter a giant caveat concerning, at the very least, a need to show that the predicted PC fractal dimension is the same (or similar) as that in Jones et al. (2005) ... I strongly suspect the two are actually incompatible.

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.".
Yeah, but ...

This reminds me of the Peratt spiral galaxy model ... his simulation can produce some nice 'look at the pictures!' similarity while completely overlooking a fatal flaw.

In this case the whole issue of 'galaxy bias' - which is tied up with 'luminosity bias', and much more - is given rather short shrift. I think you'll find, when you dig into the details, that this Baryshev and Teerikorpi paper should be rather troubling for any PC proponent. For starters, it concludes that there is a cross-over scale (to homogeneity, from fractal scaling); PC does not permit large-scale homogeneity. For seconds, the scaling applies to a universe ruled by GR, with CDM built in to the logic chain that leads to the fractal scaling conclusions; to claim that this paper is consistent with PC would require rather a lot of work to re-do the calculations without GR and CDM.

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" :rolleyes: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3681728&postcount=105 )

... snip ...
All well and good ...

... and all the more troubling that you think this is helping you make the case for PC! :eye-poppi

A rotating (spinning?) lawn sprinkler can produce a nice spiral pattern; does that mean spiral galaxies get their shape from the same sort of mechanism? Of course not.

As I understand it, from the material you have posted, Lerner's scaling relationship refers to (mass) density vs scale, and falls out from his idea of how galaxies form (gravitational collapse being the last stage). It explicitly excludes any CDM, as well as any role for GR ... so if the input mass (ranges) are wrong, maybe it's just a fluke that he ends up with that particular fractal scaling?

Then there's the issue of internal consistency.

For example, if 'intrinsic redshifts' apply to a significant fraction of extra-galactic objects, then the basis for the analyses in Tegmark et al. (2004), Jones et al. (2005), Baryshev and Teerikorpi (2005?), etc is wrong ... and the conclusions thus useless.

Ditto with respect to 'plasma redshifts' (not to mention all the other problems such crackpot ideas would introduce to most of the astrophysics 'the rest' of PC apparently relies on).

-----------------------------------------------------

That's four parts of Zeuzzz' long post addressed, and so far a four out of four (to over-summarise: PC, per Zeuzzz, is either woo or wrong, 4 out of 4 times).

(to be continued)
 
Care to defend the magnetic fields that aren't strong enough to support your suggested model of 'flat rotation curves' for galaxies. Funny how you just ignore the critique of it, what size charge are you going to need on a star so a micro gauss field can accelerate it and make the flat rotation curve?

Or wil you start the magic shifto chango and say, well the stars aren't accelerated, it is the plasma?

I thought that the radius at which the galaxy rotation curve deviated from a Keplerian relationship was near to the outer radius of the luminous galactic material.

I thought that the galaxy rotation curve beyond the luminus galactic material was determined by looking at hydrogen gas and similar things in the halo.

So, I am therefore not certain that stars, planets, or comets in the galactic halo need to interact with the galactic EM fields to provide the flat rotation curve, as we are not looking at them to determine the curve.

We are looking at the gas, so if it is charged, then it would interact.

Whether it would interact in a way that would provide a flat galactic rotation curve only Peratt, Lerner, Alven, Zeuzz and BAC know.
 
I thought that the radius at which the galaxy rotation curve deviated from a Keplerian relationship was near to the outer radius of the luminous galactic material.

I thought that the galaxy rotation curve beyond the luminus galactic material was determined by looking at hydrogen gas and similar things in the halo.

So, I am therefore not certain that stars, planets, or comets in the galactic halo need to interact with the galactic EM fields to provide the flat rotation curve, as we are not looking at them to determine the curve.

We are looking at the gas, so if it is charged, then it would interact.

Whether it would interact in a way that would provide a flat galactic rotation curve only Peratt, Lerner, Alven, Zeuzz and BAC know.
Hey, why not post this in the thread devoted to the observational evidence of CDM??

Anyway, there are tracers of the rotation curve beyond the edge of the visible disk, other than gas and dust. One of Zeuzzz' sources quotes a book on the subject (Eastman, I think; he very conveniently didn't read, or didn't understand most of it, it seems), by Freeman and McNamara. It seems Freeman has spent a great deal of his professional career as an astronomy looking into just this question ... his chosen tracer is PNe (planetary nebulae).

Besides, it's not just the rotation curve; there are plenty of other tracers of the (radial) distribution of mass of (spiral) galaxies, many of which are not gas or dust ...
 
I thought that the radius at which the galaxy rotation curve deviated from a Keplerian relationship was near to the outer radius of the luminous galactic material.

I thought that the galaxy rotation curve beyond the luminus galactic material was determined by looking at hydrogen gas and similar things in the halo.

So, I am therefore not certain that stars, planets, or comets in the galactic halo need to interact with the galactic EM fields to provide the flat rotation curve, as we are not looking at them to determine the curve.

We are looking at the gas, so if it is charged, then it would interact.

Whether it would interact in a way that would provide a flat galactic rotation curve only Peratt, Lerner, Alven, Zeuzz and BAC know.

UM, that is not true, the issue of the missing matter (IE DM&DE) comes from observations of the observable stars and such in galaxies and galaxy clusters. That is what led epeople to hypothisze that dark matter existed. The visible stars are moving faster than just gravity without DM would allow. Now the distribution of DM or DE is another matter. But the moving objects include the visible stars, which is why I mentioned it. And BACs shifting of the goal posts.


Now does the rotation curve extend beyond the visible stars, sure, but it also includes the visible stars.

Now this source is very general, so maybe it is oversimplified:
http://astro.berkeley.edu/~mwhite/darkmatter/rotcurve.html
 
Last edited:
(continued)
... snip ...
DeiRenDopa said:
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. :D 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?
(emphasis added)

That's pretty good actually, thanks.

First, in normal, contemporary science (well, at least astrophysics etc), theories cannot falsify anything ... that's the job of experiments and observations.

That PC is, according to you, so different from normal science (at least in this respect) is good to know ... it makes a lot more sense then to focus on the implications of this new paradigm ...

Second, a viable alternative must, as Tubbythin has already pointed out, meet a very high standard before it can be considered 'viable' (as an alternative). As we have all seen, repeatedly, from your posts, in the alternative paradigm of science that PC adheres to, 'viable' can be purely bit-wise - one piece stands up well here, another over there, ... but there's no requirement for any overall viability to be established, much less shown.

In a way this is consistent with that aspect of PC I've already noted: it's quite relaxed about internal inconsistencies. Given that quite strong internal inconsistencies are shrugged off, it is no longer a surprise that external inconsistencies (i.e. those between theory and experiment/observation) don't seem to bother any PC proponent.

So, again, it makes more sense to focus on the gulf over 'viable' ...
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?

... snip ...
An odd thing to write ...

The context was a report about the detection, in the x-ray band, of an IGM filament connecting two rich clusters, part of the expected 'cosmic web'.

You commented on the shape ... which has next to nothing to do with the actual observations, or the underlying theory.

Worse, as the Millennium simulation has shown rather dramatically, at that scale, gravity does a particularly good job of producing just the kinds of 'cosmic web' filaments which were being discussed (and it's not the nice visuals; the underlying numbers are what one uses to show how good the match is).

In conjunction with your comments about 'viable alternative', I now see why the broad consistencies in modern astrophysics don't see to register with you ... in the alternative science paradigm you operate in (PC), such consistency is hardly worth anything ...

(to be continued)
 
(continued)Thanks.

Kinda makes my point well, don't you think?

Step 1: declare - by fiat? - that there are only two games in town (call them "B" and "P").

Step 2: cherry-pick something about the one you like (P, say), and make up a story about something vaguely similar as it relates to the one you don't (B).

Step 3: write up a parody of B so that it seems inconsistent with observation, based on the story in Step 2; it's OK to lie, but try to ensure the lies are not blatant.

Step 4 (optional): list how well the cherry-picked aspect of P matches observation; unless you absolutely have to, don't use numbers.

Step 5: declare P is, obviously, so overwhelmingly superior to B that you can't understand why anyone still works on B.

Note that the logic of false dichotomy enters in Step 1: at its simplest the two other logical choices ('neither', 'both') are omitted; more realistically, the existence of any other alternatives is implicitly denied ... even if some may be well-established (in the case of PC proponents, for example, all steady-state cosmologies are thus, by omission, non-existent, even though there are many of them, and even though some may be very relevant to the cherry-picked aspect of Step 2).

There's a companion piece, not part of this particular faulty logic but often used with it by PC proponents: extreme selectivity when it comes to which observations to examine.

Take the observed shapes of spiral galaxies as an example. It may well be that Peratt's PC model, per his simulations, can produce shapes that resemble those of spiral galaxies, with a 'compare these two pictures/images' method. However, as we have known for a month or three now, Peratt's model has at least one fatal flaw, so unless and until those fatal flaws can be fixed, the similarity in shape is little more than an amusing curiosity. There are, after all, a great many other ways to produce shapes that do as well on the 'look at the pictures!' method - something like a rotating lawn sprinkler for example - yet no one seriously proposes most of these other ways, because they each have at least one fatal flaw.


Ha!

You think that the fundamental property of scale invarience in plasma creating identical structures over many orders of magnitude is comparible to scaling a rotating lawn sprinkler??? Why dont you write up a paper on how the spiral shape in your toilet is actually how galaxies form? Because that would be ridiculous; we know that that does not scale. We DO know that plasma scales. Do you even read the posts that you write DRD?

And these type of purely subjective posts about your opinion of which theory is more valid are getting quite tiring. I could write the exact same post in reverse about you and your explanations for this, but what would it achieve? Nothing. (Other than annoying people that dont agree with your personal opinion) Robinson pointed this out very well previously.



1. Provide direct evidence = "Cherry picking"

2. Compare two theories = "declare - by fiat? - that there are only two games in town"

3. Show observations that contradict a theory = "Write up a parody of B so that it seems inconsistent with observation [...] lie, but try to ensure the lies are not blatant."

4. Show how the observations are relevant to the theory = "list how well the cherry-picked aspect of P matches observation"

5. State your opinion that the theory you support is correct = "declare P is, obviously so superior to B that you can't understand why anyone still works on B."


See what I mean?

[wait for the accusations of me being a "woo dumping seagull" because I took time to contribute something to this thread :rolleyes:]
 
Last edited:
I'll save him the time (if you haven't got me on ignore still).


Nope, I'm reading some of your posts. I just find that attempting to have a constructive conversation with you is essentially futile.


Its really quite obvious, and as JDG says, i'm quite amazed that you dont know what the redshift anomaly is. I'm not sure which one he is specifically referring to, there are many others, to do with quantization, allignments of planes, etc, but the main one that people note is the one associated with the work of Arp et al.


Well thanks for coming in and saving Jerome's skin, but that's like giving the answer away! Of course, since you still cannot say which "redshift anomaly" to which he is referring, perhaps Jerome would be willing to elucidate in more detail, hmmm? My guess is... not :rolleyes:

While you're at it, would you be willing to define these terms on Jerome's behalf since he's gone mute on the subject?...

1. redshift anomaly (defined? :confused:)
2. supposition
3. evidence

+ some others from a separate thread (but relevant here)

4. gnome :D
5. fusion
6. fission

Okay, here I go back to lurking...
 
Last edited:
(continued)
... snip ...

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)
This also is good, thanks.

I think the distinction is pretty silly, but each to his own when it comes to philosophy ...

However, if a key characteristic of PC is its 'actualistic approach' (and Lerner, per the 'uncensored' Wiki page certainly seems to say so), then much of what Zeuzzz has posted in this thread cannot be PC.

There's nothing 'actualistic' about 'intrinsic redshift' ... it's just mis-application of (pretty basic) statistics to astronomy.

Embracing crackpot ideas (like 'plasma redshift') isn't 'actualistic'.

Rejecting 'the extrapolation backwards in time' by inventing 'tired light' mechanisms when an 'actualistic' one has been tested in the lab (and found to work) is a mis-application of the concept.

Making models of the formation of our galaxy, or galaxies in general, is just as 'prophetic' as making models of the formation of nuclides by a non-Lerner mechanism.

And so on.

Not much 'actualistic' philosophy apparent in PC today, and it certainly does not seem to over-ride an apparent deep dislike of General Relativity.

Just as bad, though by now readers must be getting used to it, is the deliberate, cynical distortion of what modern cosmology is ("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"). Zeuzzz, if you can't take the trouble to actually learn what ΛLCDM models are all about, why do you get miffed when people call you a crackpot or a troll?

... snip ...

And that controversy he mentions is what this thread seems to be about :D

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.
Indeed.

You may wish to look into a mirror - I feel that almost all the 'confrontation' stems from your posting behaviour, as I indicated in an earlier post:
If you:

* persistently continue to not answer (refuse to answer?) direct questions asked of the posts you yourself have written, on content that is directly relevant

* persistently mis-represent what others who have taken the trouble to actually read the material you provide wrote

* frequently engage in 'drive by' spamming (e.g. on JdG's 'redshifts'), i.e. obviously do not even bother to determine the context before posting

* change the key definitions (e.g. "Plasma Cosmology") you use, several times, in the course of just one thread, without acknowledgment

... and so on

why do you think you deserve respect?
Next ...
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. :D
Hmm ...

And who was it, just a few short sentences earlier, who wrote "this [thread] seems to be descending into too much of a confrontational style for my liking"?

And who is it who has, almost always, ignored posts ('confrontational' or not) about inconsistencies in what they have posted (for example, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here)?

But ever the spin-meister eh Zeuzzz?

A thread about whether PC is woo or not turns, in your capable hands, into a thread about falsifying PC! :eek:

Zeuzzz, in case you hadn't noticed, your contributions so far have enabled at least one JREF forum contributor (me) to learn a great deal about PC ... and to discover that there's almost no science in it (at least as you have presented it, in this thread).

So, whereas there may be some good science in some of Peratt's or Lerner's papers, for example, sufficient that it could be (and on the whole has been) falsified, the most positive thing I think that could be said about the rest is that it clearly works within a different paradigm of what science is; saying this a little less charitably, most of PC is woo.
 
I started a new topic. But don't even think about bringing this long running battle into it.


Well, I certainly dont see any battle commencing, unless you want to start a battle, which i'm sure wont be appreciated there, I just posted some information highly relevant to the material already being discussed in the thread. If anything, your posts in that thread are the ones most likely to start a confrontation, accusing people of being "ignorant" and "flaunting their ignorance", whereas my post just contained information. The information may not please you, but thats what it is, information. Others certainly dont seem to find it so offensive.
 
Well, I certainly dont see any battle commencing, unless you want to start a battle, which i'm sure wont be appreciated there, I just posted some information highly relevant to the material already being discussed in the thread.
Oh?

Of course! Silly me ... I missed all the references to papers published in relevant peer-reviewed journals, by astronomers ...

Wait! That's right! "Thornhill, W." got his PhD in astrophysics from ... where, exactly, Zeuzzz? And what was his thesis topic again? I seem to have forgotten.

Oh, and those suppressors of truth, how dare they ask that pretty pictures and word salad about 'scaling laws' be backed up with equations and statistical analyses before they publish papers! I mean, the sheer cheek!!

And it wouldn't do to mention that Bostick's 1986 (huh! robinson is so certain that this is a brand new revolution!!) paper has got all of 11 citations (in > 20 years!), so it certainly got a very cool reception indeed from both the astrophysics and plasma physics communities. And he himself obviously didn't think much of it ... he cited it only once.

If anything, your posts in that thread are the ones most likely to start a confrontation, accusing people of being "ignorant" and "flaunting their ignorance", whereas my post just contained information. The information may not please you, but thats what it is, information. Others certainly dont seem to find it so offensive.
Ah yes ...

Now who did I accuse of being enjoying being ignorant and enjoying flaunting that ignorance? Why the OP himself, robinson! And why, he-who-knows-plasma-so-well (I'm talking about you here Zeuzzz) did I make that accusation? HINT: read some of robinson's own posts on how bluntly (and ignorantly) he disses what others write ... then compare it with his own words, on a topic he started ... and then this (emphasis added): "In regards to plasma, cold plasma is still several thousand degrees. When discussing any matter that is at a million degrees K, we are talking about plasma. By definition."

Now, as to what others think; what say you to the inferred state of offense of the person who wrote this? (emphasis added)
Exactly - the reason the word "plasma" isn't used very often in public press releases is that most people don't know what it means. It's incredible that anyone could find anything significant in that.

This thread should be moved to the CT forum.
Or this
Where I now sit at an Unnamed Major Research University, I'm a stone's throw from an astrophysics lab with "plasma" in its name, a few buildings away from a lab with "space plasma" in its name. The required graduate intro-astro class at this university includes solving the Saha Equation for the ionization state of a plasma. Plasmas crop up in essentially all astro colloquia here, especially in accretion disks. The Biggest Astro Discovery of the Year, on which I've delivered journal-club talks and listened to colloquia, included a experimental constraint on intergalactic magnetic fields; I'm involved in a project whose underlying theory includes an electric field at a (unusual) stellar surface; I recently gave up on a calculation for which I hoped (unusual) stellar-interior electric fields would turn out to be important, but when I did that part of the calculation they turned out to be unimportant.

In other words, the OP is full of baloney.
And let's not forget that this is the JREF forum, the Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology section.
 

Back
Top Bottom