Plasma Cosmology - Woo or not

robinson · May 23, 2008

That NGC 1275 is some wild stuff. More extensive data about it

http://heritage.stsci.edu/2003/14/supplemental.html

Reality Check · May 23, 2008

BeAChooser said:
http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/0507/ngc1275_wiyn_big.jpg

As NASA said "How were the unusual gas filaments surrounding galaxy NGC 1275 created? No one is sure."

Actually people have been fairly sure since April 2006: On the origin and excitation of the extended nebula surrounding NGC1275 has an explanation for some of the fliaments at least.

It is amazing what a couple of minutes on Google can find!

Tubbythin · May 23, 2008

Zeuzzz said:
I dont know. It would be nice if some astrnomers considered these questions, but they dont seem to have ever considered alternatives. If we see certain oscillations and fluctuations in any set of data we can always ‘model’ them – fit a mathematical curve to the data by ‘least squares fit’ or some other criterion. But then to claim that this model ‘proves’ what is occurring inside the Sun, where no observation has been made (or is possible), is logically unsupportable.

Ok. So you seem to be accusing the astronomers of not considering whether these alternatives are possible without having the faintest idea about them yourself. Why would an astronomer waste time considering an alternative that falls apart at the first hurdle? If, for example, Z-pinch fusion does not give rise to hydrostatic equilibrium (as it appeared in your post about it on the other thread) why waste time with it. If this alternative solar model does not give hydrostatic equilibrium it is completely and utterly wrong. So until you or someone else can show this does give hydrostatic equilibrium and a BB spectrum and... you are in no position to criticize astronomers for ignoring the alternatives. They're ignoring the alternatives presumably because they're completely unphysical.

DeiRenDopa · May 23, 2008

BeAChooser said:
BeAChooser said:

As NASA said "How were the unusual gas filaments surrounding galaxy NGC 1275 created? No one is sure."

Click to expand...

Or should they have said ... *Looks like Dark Matter to me.*

I see that RC has already provided a link to a relevant paper (there are quite a few more, if you're interested ...).

However, as this is a thread devoted to Plasma Cosmology (and whether it is woo or not), may we please have references to some papers, by 'plasma cosmologists', which account for the observations reported in the Hatch et al. 2005 paper?

And, so there is no doubt, by 'match' I mean a quantitative match ... starting with a published (plasma cosmology) model, crunching of the numbers, and a filament-by-filament account of the match of model to observations, along with an appropriate discussion of consistency.

Dancing David · May 23, 2008

BeAChooser said:
[qimg]http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/0507/ngc1275_wiyn_big.jpg[/qimg]

As NASA said "How were the unusual gas filaments surrounding galaxy NGC 1275 created? No one is sure."

Do you mean APOD
http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap050725.html

" Possible origins for the filaments may involve details of the collision between the two galaxies, or alternatively, interactions between a galactic center black hole and the surrounding intracluster gas. "

You left that out, didn't you.

Two years almost three since, what has happened since then?

Dancing David · May 23, 2008

oops here is some more garvity

http://arxiv.org/abs/0804.0694

and some thing not called plasma

http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/1538-3881/122/5/2281

more gravity

http://arxiv.org/abs/0712.2979

more bouyancy

http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=17607200

ionised gas?

http://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...serid=10&md5=def6e6d57d07083fd84be925fef3392d

BeAChooser · May 23, 2008

Reality Check said:
Actually people have been fairly sure since April 2006: On the origin and excitation of the extended nebula surrounding NGC1275 has an explanation for some of the fliaments at least.

From your link: "We use line-of-sight velocity information on the filamentary emission-line nebula of NGC1275 to infer a dynamical model of the nebula's flow through the surrounding intracluster gas. We detect outflowing gas and flow patterns that match simulations of buoyantly rising bubbles from which we deduce that some of the nebula filaments have been drawn out of NGC1275."

So yet again, we encounter astrophysicists that seem unable to use the word "plasma" and insist on applying phenomena more suitable to neutral atmosphere and water to the filamentary material. Now if you access the full article (http://uk.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0512331 ) you will find they say these "bubbles" are filled with plasma but that's about the only place plasma is mentioned and they never look at the role electromagnetic effects might have on that plasma. To them it's just a "bubble" rising in a neutral fluid.

And here's a 2004 article (http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0411446 ) by the exact same authors on NGC1275 where the word "plasma" isn't mentioned even once. In fact, they don't even mention that the "gas" is "ionized" in that one.

robinson · May 23, 2008

Hey! We have a whole topic about that! Don't start disrupting this topic with plasma discussions.

Oh wait ...

never mind.

Wangler · May 23, 2008

DeiRenDopa said:
Nah, this is obfuscation, or misunderstanding, or ...

CDM is certainly an important component of ΛCDM models (duh!), and at the cosmological level there's an extraordinary consistency (which I'll address when I get round to the 'cosmology' part of my thread on the observational evidence for CDM).

HOWEVER, you need CDM for objects as small as dwarf galaxies, and as close to home as our own galaxy. And historically the observations of CDM had little to do, directly, with any cosmological models, if only because the observational constraints on the average mass-energy density of the universe were too broad.

I'm a little surprised at seeing you write this Wrangler ... I thought you understood the historical and observational record - re CDM - better than this.

I understand less than I would like, and certainly less than I should. I have certainly learned alot about the subject reading your posts in the CDM.

My point was that I still feel that COLD dark matter is a bit of a crutch.

This point of view may certainly turn out to be false, held by me in my ignorance of the subject matter.

I guess that the overall point of my post is that if PC exists such that

...new theories are free to be added to the collection at any time....

and that is presented as a drawback to plasma cosmology, then we must also view that as a drawback to the concordance cosmology as it exists today.

DeiRenDopa · May 23, 2008

BeAChooser said:
From your link: "We use line-of-sight velocity information on the filamentary emission-line nebula of NGC1275 to infer a dynamical model of the nebula's flow through the surrounding intracluster gas. We detect outflowing gas and flow patterns that match simulations of buoyantly rising bubbles from which we deduce that some of the nebula filaments have been drawn out of NGC1275."

So yet again, we encounter astrophysicists that seem unable to use the word "plasma" and insist on applying phenomena more suitable to neutral atmosphere and water to the filamentary material. Now if you access the full article (http://uk.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0512331 ) you will find they say these "bubbles" are filled with plasma but that's about the only place plasma is mentioned and they never look at the role electromagnetic effects might have on that plasma. To them it's just a "bubble" rising in a neutral fluid.

And here's a 2004 article (http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0411446 ) by the exact same authors on NGC1275 where the word "plasma" isn't mentioned even once. In fact, they don't even mention that the "gas" is "ionized" in that one.

And this is relevant to whether Plasma Cosmology is woo or not because ....?

Oh wait!

I forgot!

Plasma cosmology is NOT woo because an astronomer (or twenty) wrote a paper (or twenty) in which they described something as 'gas' when clearly it is almost certainly a plasma; THEREFORE plasma cosmology IS NOT WOO!!!

Now back to your regular scheduled program ...

May we please have references to some papers, by 'plasma cosmologists', which account for the NGC 1275 observations reported in the Hatch et al. 2005 paper?

(I wrote it in bold because it seems you missed it the first time round).

Wangler · May 23, 2008

Wangler said:
I understand less than I would like, and certainly less than I should. I have certainly learned alot about the subject reading your posts in the CDM.

My point was that I still feel that COLD dark matter is a bit of a crutch.

This point of view may certainly turn out to be false, held by me in my ignorance of the subject matter.

I guess that the overall point of my post is that if PC exists such that

and that is presented as a drawback to plasma cosmology, then we must also view that as a drawback to the concordance cosmology as it exists today.

I guess my point would hold for all of science as well.

If we are "free to add new theories..." then perhaps we will finally come up with a GUT, or something.

Or we can just disavow new theories, and go back to epicycles and superluminiferous ether.

Belz... · May 23, 2008

robinson said:
Of course this may be off topic, concerning plasma cosmology, which is still a nebulous topic.

Nebulous.

DeiRenDopa · May 23, 2008

Wangler said:
I understand less than I would like, and certainly less than I should. I have certainly learned alot about the subject reading your posts in the CDM.

My point was that I still feel that COLD dark matter is a bit of a crutch.

This point of view may certainly turn out to be false, held by me in my ignorance of the subject matter.

I guess that the overall point of my post is that if PC exists such that

and that is presented as a drawback to plasma cosmology, then we must also view that as a drawback to the concordance cosmology as it exists today.

Thanks for this.

What I was really getting at is that CDM does not, necessarily, have anything to do with cosmology. Further, historically, it was not 'invented' to address any cosmological issue, observation, etc.

So, both logically and historically, CDM is not related to the contemporary cosmological models in the way your post stated (or inferred), nor in the way RC meant with respect to PC.

There is, of course, an interesting relationship (or parallel, if you like): modern cosmology accepts that 'the big picture' should be consistent with smaller scale stuff, and a great many consistencies are explored and tested*. On the other hand, PC's pieces are truly independent - apparently none is required to be consistent, at any level, with any other, and inconsistencies are rarely even mentioned, let alone used as spurs for further research.

* one well-known inconsistency is the expected number of CDM-dominated dwarf galaxy satellites of normal galaxies (such as the MW) - simulations show there should be ~10 times as many as are actually observed. That's a great spur for research - are there, in fact, many more satellite dwarfs? are the simulations accurate enough at this level? what physical mechanisms have been inadequately modeled? omitted? and so on ...

DeiRenDopa · May 23, 2008

Tubbythin said:
Ok. So you seem to be accusing the astronomers of not considering whether these alternatives are possible without having the faintest idea about them yourself. Why would an astronomer waste time considering an alternative that falls apart at the first hurdle? If, for example, Z-pinch fusion does not give rise to hydrostatic equilibrium (as it appeared in your post about it on the other thread) why waste time with it. If this alternative solar model does not give hydrostatic equilibrium it is completely and utterly wrong. So until you or someone else can show this does give hydrostatic equilibrium and a BB spectrum and... you are in no position to criticize astronomers for ignoring the alternatives. They're ignoring the alternatives presumably because they're completely unphysical.

Surprising as it may seem, I think you have misunderstood a pretty fundamental aspect of Plasma Cosmology (PC), Tubbythin.

To continue with your hypothetical example, in the alternative science paradigm underlying PC, there is no requirement for a Z-pinch fusion system to give rise to hydrostatic equilibrium, nor an approximately blackbody spectrum, nor ... :eye-poppi

You see, internal consistency is not very important in PC, nor is consistency with relevant observations (it took me a while to accept that this is, in fact, the way PC works).

At a trivial level you can see this in how Zeuzzz responds to direct questions - his replies are often many quotes and links, few (if any) of which have direct relevance (and, all too often, little indirect relevance either). This inconsistency doesn't seem to bother him in the least.

At a slightly higher level, on a topic I hope to explore in more detail shortly, notice how effortlessly Zeuzzz describes the 'electric star' idea in PC - electric currents and resistive heating ('external electrical activity') may be important proximate causes of emission in certain interacting binary systems, THEREFORE electric currents and resistive heating may be important proximate causes of emission for all stars, whether they are interacting binary systems or not! Zeuzzz is perfectly happy to cite papers on the (Sun's) heliospheric current sheet as being on par with the electric currents and resistive heating models of certain interacting binaries. Perhaps he is so ignorant of the relevant physics that he truly doesn't know how inconsistent this is, but if you read enough of what he's written I think the more likely explanation is that these sorts of inconsistencies simply don't trouble him in the least.

Up one more level; Peratt's supercomputer models of 'spiral galaxy formation'.

As an interesting intellectual exercise, I'm sure it was (and still is) quite fun. However, it's pretty clear Peratt didn't try very hard to test his model for consistency with real spiral galaxies (beyond a 'rotation curve' and some pretty pictures), nor did he seem to care very much (I doubt there were many, if any, astronomers among those who reviewed his papers before recommending publication, for example). You see, inconsistency doesn't count for much in his mind (or so it would seem).

Lerner comes closest to seeming to care, based on his published papers; for example, he acknowledges that the CMB angular power spectrum is an important test of his CMB model, and that he hasn't developed it to the point where such a test is possible.

Finally, there's my long time fave example of how unimportant internal consistency is to PC proponents, 'intrinsic redshift'. Halton Arp is clearly a hero to most PC proponents, and his 'intrinsic redshift' work often figures prominently in their marketing puff pieces*. In those same puff pieces 'dark matter', 'dark energy', 'inflation', 'black holes' (and more) are scorned, called 'gnomes', and generally pooh-poohed because no lab has ever produced any such. The fact that no lab have ever produced any 'intrinsic redshift' either is not only not mentioned, but when it is, no PC proponent expresses any discomfort! :jaw-dropp

The jewel in this inconsistency crown is that no PC proponent (that I know of) has ever re-done any calculations to incorporate Arpian 'intrinsic redshift'. If such calculations were to be re-done, for all we know, Lerner's tired light, his CMB models, Peratt's spiral galaxy formation and quasar/radio lobes models, and so on, would all turn ridiculous. Weird. You'd have thought at least one person would have been curious enough to go find out, wouldn't you?

* Zeuzzz too has a long history of citing these papers as core PC documents.

Tubbythin · May 23, 2008

Zeuzzz said:
If you look at the nuclear fusion page in wiki it says "Research into controlled fusion, with the aim of producing fusion power for the production of electricity, has been conducted for over 50 years. It has been accompanied by extreme scientific and technological difficulties, but resulted in steady progress.", so it seems that there are issues with the hydrogen fusion process, even if they are marginal problems. I just think that other types of energy release should be considered as well as the original assumption that it has to be H-fusion.

Zeuzzz, the issues are with the magnetic confinement. I thought you would know this.

Zeuzzz · May 23, 2008

DeiRenDopa said:
To continue with your hypothetical example, in the alternative science paradigm underlying PC, there is no requirement for a Z-pinch fusion system to give rise to hydrostatic equilibrium, nor an approximately blackbody spectrum, nor ...

You see, internal consistency is not very important in PC, nor is consistency with relevant observations (it took me a while to accept that this is, in fact, the way PC works).

Wheres the plasma cosmology paper saying anything about a "Z-pinch fusion system" ??? Your bringing up Scotts more speculative stuff again, in a thread about plasma cosmology. Thats why I keep saying, stick to the peer reviewed stuff only, or its not likely accepted PC material. Not everything mentioned in this thread has been PC, its wandered far and wide in terms of its contents, people always end up discussing their personal opinion on other similar issues too, thats only to be expected really. Just make sure that you only consider the peer reviewed material plasma cosmology, or it can get very confusing drawing a distiction between PC, whats someones personal opinion, a completely different theory, or something else all together.

Zeuzzz is perfectly happy to cite papers on the (Sun's) heliospheric current sheet as being on par with the electric currents and resistive heating models of certain interacting binaries.

I have not linked to the heliospheric current sheet, apart from the one quote in this post, I have always linked to the heliospheric current circuit, I only quoted the heliospheric current sheet in that post as it was highly relevant to Alfvens model, and is the principle the heliospheric current circuit is based on.

Maybe a picture would grab your, an others, attention more, since you so far have not commented on the links I provided before in various journals on this; (in the above link)

http://www.plasma-universe.com/index.php/Heliospheric_current_circuit

Heliospheric current circuit with the Sun as a unipolar inductor.

Up one more level; Peratt's supercomputer models of 'spiral galaxy formation'.

As an interesting intellectual exercise, I'm sure it was (and still is) quite fun. However, it's pretty clear Peratt didn't try very hard to test his model for consistency with real spiral galaxies (beyond a 'rotation curve' and some pretty pictures)

His model explains the origin and source of energy of double radio galaxies, the total magnitude of the radio flux observed, the measured flux density as a function of frequency, the observed isophotal morphologies, the spatially varying power law within a source, the polarization properties of the incoherent synchrotron radiation measured, and the lifetime and evolution of a source. See sections a, b, c, d, e, f and g in his publication "Evolution of the Plasma Universe: I. Double Radio Galaxies, Quasars, and Extragalactic Jets, which deals with each one respectively. And other sections of this addresses the formation of elliptical quasars, magnetically confined sheet electron beams we see in all galaxies, the emporal and spatial characteristics of the induction acceleration field, polarization and superluminosity, The induction accelerated Sheet Beam, formation of dust lanes due to the elliptical magnetic separatrix, and many other aspects. http://plasmascience.net/tpu/downloadsCosmo/Peratt86TPS-I.pdf (IEEE Transactions on Plasma Sci. Vol. PS-14)

Another publication, http://plasmascience.net/tpu/downloadsCosmo/Peratt86TPS-II.pdf (IEEE Transactions on Plasma Sci. Vol. PS-14) looks at;

The gross radio properties of galaxies are reviewed in
Section II. Section III describes a transistion through the
following sequence of cosmic objects: double radio galaxy
to radioquasar; radioquasar to radioquiet quasi-stellar
objects (QSO's) [9]; radioquiet QSO's to peculiar and
Seyfert spiral galaxies; and peculiar and Seyfert galaxies
to normal and barred galaxies. The various classifications
of elliptical and spiral galaxies are discussed in Sections
IV and V, respectively. The importance of electromagnetic
effects in describing both the bulk- and fine-detail
structure in the velocity curves of spiral galaxies is also
reported in Section V. Multiple interacting galaxies are
studied in Section VI. The chemical composition and the
distribution of neutral hydrogen in galaxies is discussed
in Section VII. Section VIII covers the Alfven-Carlqvist
model for star formation in pinched plasma filaments
while Section IX reports the extension of three-dimensional
electromagnetic particle simulation techniques to
include gravitational forces with the formation of stars.

In Electric space: Evolution of the plasma universe (Astrophysics and Space Science, Volume 244) he expands on it further, comparing the H-structure of his galaxy model to what we observe in galaxies, just as predicted by the supercomputer, along with many other aspects, and in Plasma and the Universe: Large Scale Dynamics, Filamentation, and Radiation (Astrophysics and Space Science, Volume 227) he elaborated further on many other aspects also.

and heres another http://plasmascience.net/tpu/downloads/Peratt_RolePartBeams.pdf (Laser and Particle Beams, vol.6, part.3) and there are others...

So i'm really not sure why you said "it's pretty clear Peratt didn't try very hard to test his model for consistency with real spiral galaxies (beyond a 'rotation curve' and some pretty pictures)", this sort of comment just comes across as a bit naive... and bit of a hand wave to be quite frank...

nor did he seem to care very much (I doubt there were many, if any, astronomers among those who reviewed his papers before recommending publication, for example). You see, inconsistency doesn't count for much in his mind (or so it would seem).

Yeah, I suppose that the peer review process in various above reputable journals I listed just suddently broke down every single day that Pertatt submitted his work and they published it

Did you really mean this? Or am I misunderstanding what you said?

Lerner comes closest to seeming to care, based on his published papers; for example, he acknowledges that the CMB angular power spectrum is an important test of his CMB model, and that he hasn't developed it to the point where such a test is possible.

Thats true I believe. Where does he say this out of curiousity? I would like to see it in one of his publications to see what else he says in relation to this component.

Finally, there's my long time fave example of how unimportant internal consistency is to PC proponents, 'intrinsic redshift'. Halton Arp is clearly a hero to most PC proponents, and his 'intrinsic redshift' work often figures prominently in their marketing puff pieces*. In those same puff pieces 'dark matter', 'dark energy', 'inflation', 'black holes' (and more) are scorned, called 'gnomes', and generally pooh-poohed because no lab has ever produced any such. The fact that no lab have ever produced any 'intrinsic redshift' either is not only not mentioned, but when it is, no PC proponent expresses any discomfort!

I dont think that anything is called a 'gnome' in any of the peer reviewed PC publications, i'm not sure they'd get away with that sort of reference in a journal. That just left up to me, BAC, and others to point out here after reading what their work implies. If they did have the opinion you just stated, they would have to give a valid scientific reason for this (obviously), or it would not get published. And they do hold Harps work that implies that redshifts are not always accurate measurements of distance in higher regard than conventional cosmologists, as not much of plasma cosmology depends on whether his observations of connected objects with very different redshifts are proved conclusively or not. They have looked into a number of alternatives, mainly the Wolf Effect and the CREIL effect (or Raman scattering), and published a few papers on some of the other more established Tired Light type theories as possible contendors.

The jewel in this inconsistency crown is that no PC proponent (that I know of) has ever re-done any calculations to incorporate Arpian 'intrinsic redshift'.

How can you calculate an intrinsic redshift, when the phrase "intrinsic redshift" is just what is used to describe any of the many alternative theories that exist for redshifts. You cant calculate a word! but within one of the many theories that this phrase describes, you certainly can use calculations within them, infact thats entirely what these scientific theories are based on.

If such calculations were to be re-done, for all we know, Lerner's tired light, his CMB models, Peratt's spiral galaxy formation and quasar/radio lobes models, and so on, would all turn ridiculous. Weird. You'd have thought at least one person would have been curious enough to go find out, wouldn't you?

They are just not arriving at the conclusion that redshift always implies distance from the various observations that seem to contradict redshifts. And Arps work, and numerous other observations, certainly seems to imply this for quasars in particular.

Lerner points out some here;

[...]As in previous years, evidence continues to accumulate that quasar (QSO) redshifts are at least in part intrinsic, and that many QSOs are no where near as distant as the redshifts imply. Ryabinkov showed that there are periodicities in the absorption line spectra in QSOs, a pattern that would not be expected if the absorption lines were from intervening galaxies. Bell and McDiarmid showed that the angular motions in quasar jets are more easily understood if the QSOs are not at extreme distance.

There may be a plasma-based explanation of what could generate the redshifts within the atmosphere of the quasar. Sisir Roy et al have devoted such a theory and have compared it to quasar observations.

The redshift distribution of absorption-line systems in QSO spectra

Authors: A.I. Ryabinkov, A.D. Kaminker, D.A. Varshalovich

http://www.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0703277v1

An Abrupt Upper Envelope Cut-off in the Distribution of Angular Motions in Quasar Jets is Compatible in all Respects with a Simple Non-Relativistic Ejection Model

Authors: M.B. Bell, D.R McDiarmid

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0701093v1

Dynamic Multiple Scattering, Frequency Shift and Possible Effects on Quasar Astronomy

Authors: Sisir Roy, Malabika Roy, Joydip Ghosh, Menas Kafatos.

http://lanl.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0701071

* Zeuzzz too has a long history of citing these papers as core PC documents.

If (say) the founder of plasma cosmology invents a concept many years ago, and this them becomes accepted years later by astrophysicists, why cant I quote their papers that have expanded on the original PC model? Not everything I quote here *has* to be published by a plasma cosmologist, but as long as its using something accepted, or even invented, by PC, then surely, you shouldn't have a problem with that. Like the papers I quoted on unipolar inductors; they still support PC as they originate from a concept first proposed fully in space by a Plasma Cosmology proponent, in this case Alfven and Falthammer. Just compare the amount of plasma cosmologists to standard cosmologists, the ratio is quite high as i'm sure your aware, you cant expect them to have as detailed explanation for absolutely everything you request. Some aspects of their work are accpeted by some mainstrean astrophysicists, ie, Alfvens current disruption model is now beggining to gain ground over magnetic reconnection, his heliospheric current system is being investigated and talked about by other astronomers, unipolar inductor model of AGN's and galaxies, etc, etc.

Dancing David · May 24, 2008

[/lurk]

Excuuuuuse me, but Arp's staitics are so bogus it is not even funny.

[lurk]

Reality Check · May 24, 2008

Wangler said:
...new theories are free to be added to the collection at any time....

Click to expand...

and that is presented as a drawback to plasma cosmology, then we must also view that as a drawback to the concordance cosmology as it exists today.

My post on the definition of PC as a collection of theories perhaps did not make it clear about the nature of the collection: This collection allows the addition of any new theory that matches their criteria regardless of consistency with existing theories in the collection. Thus they allow:

Multiple inconsistant theories on cosmological redshift.
Multiple inconsistant theories on the cosmic microwave background.
Multiple inconsistant theories on the structure of the universe.

It is the first time that I have seen the term "concordance cosmology" and I cannot even find a definition for it on Google. The papers that I can find just look like Big Bang theory.

Expanding the PC collection to inclde DRDs extract from this thread:

Peratt's plasma model of galaxy formation.
Lerner's model of element formation in galaxies.
Tired-light explanation of cosmological redshifts.
Intrinsic redshifts from the ejection of quasars from bright galaxies.
Other theories which may include the Electric Universe (e.g. electrically powered stars).
Lerner's explanation of the CMB (there's a Peratt one too, but it hasn't been introduced yet)
Peratt's ideas on quasars/QSOs/radio galaxies/AGNs (only tangentially referenced)
Various ideas on fractal scaling, up to ~tens of Mpc
Something about 'force free filaments' (unclear whether this is a separate idea or an essential part of one or more of the above).
Also the original Plasma Cosmology of Hannes Alfvén?
etc.

DeiRenDopa · May 24, 2008

Way back when, sol invictus used a rather cute means of indicating, pithily, something like 'so many words, so little content'.

I'll look at just two (or so) things in this extraordinary post by Zeuzzz, for now ...

Zeuzzz said:
DeiRenDopa said:

To continue with your hypothetical example, in the alternative science paradigm underlying PC, there is no requirement for a Z-pinch fusion system to give rise to hydrostatic equilibrium, nor an approximately blackbody spectrum, nor ...

You see, internal consistency is not very important in PC, nor is consistency with relevant observations (it took me a while to accept that this is, in fact, the way PC works).

Click to expand...

Wheres the plasma cosmology paper saying anything about a "Z-pinch fusion system" ??? Your bringing up Scotts more speculative stuff again, in a thread about plasma cosmology. Thats why I keep saying, stick to the peer reviewed stuff only, or its not likely accepted PC material. Not everything mentioned in this thread has been PC, its wandered far and wide in terms of its contents, people always end up discussing their personal opinion on other similar issues too, thats only to be expected really. Just make sure that you only consider the peer reviewed material plasma cosmology, or it can get very confusing drawing a distiction between PC, whats someones personal opinion, a completely different theory, or something else all together.

Um ... er ...

Did you see the leetle, teensy-weensy word "hypothetical" in there?

So, to clear this up, I was using a hypothetical (mustn't shout now) example that TT introduced, to myself introduce a general point ... before going on to make several specific points ...

... snip ...

Did you really mean this? Or am I misunderstanding what you said?

Whoosh!

Yep, that's the sound of the point I was making going right over your head ...

Lerner comes closest to seeming to care, based on his published papers; for example, he acknowledges that the CMB angular power spectrum is an important test of his CMB model, and that he hasn't developed it to the point where such a test is possible.

Click to expand...

Thats true I believe. Where does he say this out of curiousity? I would like to see it in one of his publications to see what else he says in relation to this component.

You mean to say that you don't (or didn't) actually read the material you cited?!?!? :eye-poppi

HINT: try googling on "While this model has not been developed to the point of making detailed predictions of the angular spectrum of the CBR anisotropy"

Finally, there's my long time fave example of how unimportant internal consistency is to PC proponents, 'intrinsic redshift'. Halton Arp is clearly a hero to most PC proponents, and his 'intrinsic redshift' work often figures prominently in their marketing puff pieces*. In those same puff pieces 'dark matter', 'dark energy', 'inflation', 'black holes' (and more) are scorned, called 'gnomes', and generally pooh-poohed because no lab has ever produced any such. The fact that no lab have ever produced any 'intrinsic redshift' either is not only not mentioned, but when it is, no PC proponent expresses any discomfort!

Click to expand...

{irrelevant, off-topic diversion omitted}

And they do hold Harps work that implies that redshifts are not always accurate measurements of distance in higher regard than conventional cosmologists, as not much of plasma cosmology depends on whether his observations of connected objects with very different redshifts are proved conclusively or not.

Um ...

Do you want some time to think about this Zeuzzz? To consider - very, very carefully - whether you really, truly, deeply mean to say this?

They have looked into a number of alternatives, mainly the Wolf Effect and the CREIL effect (or Raman scattering), and published a few papers on some of the other more established Tired Light type theories as possible contendors.

Way to go Zeuzzz!

Now, a highly specific, non-spam, list of directly relevant published papers if you please ... on detailed, quantitative matches between any of these mechanisms and a representative range of Arpian 'intrinsic redshifts' (sample: certain stars, satellite galaxies, certain kinds of galaxies, quasars/QSOs); please do not give just one class of object.

But you missed a very large part of the point .... the rather extreme inconsistency of trashing CDM (say) because no CDM particles have been observed in the lab while at the same time embracing without the slightest murmur of concern an idea that was not (at the time) backed by even the faintest hint of anything in the lab (and, subsequently, interesting ideas as you mention continue to fail ... no lab mechanism).

In everyday human interaction terms, this smacks of hypocrisy of the most egregious kind; in scientific terms, it is as blatant a declaration as I can imagine possible to make that serious inconsistency is quite acceptable as a core principle in PC.

The jewel in this inconsistency crown is that no PC proponent (that I know of) has ever re-done any calculations to incorporate Arpian 'intrinsic redshift'.

Click to expand...

How can you calculate an intrinsic redshift, when the phrase "intrinsic redshift" is just what is used to describe any of the many alternative theories that exist for redshifts. You cant calculate a word! but within one of the many theories that this phrase describes, you certainly can use calculations within them, infact thats entirely what these scientific theories are based on.

If such calculations were to be re-done, for all we know, Lerner's tired light, his CMB models, Peratt's spiral galaxy formation and quasar/radio lobes models, and so on, would all turn ridiculous. Weird. You'd have thought at least one person would have been curious enough to go find out, wouldn't you?

Click to expand...

They are just not arriving at the conclusion that redshift always implies distance from the various observations that seem to contradict redshifts. And Arps work, and numerous other observations, certainly seems to imply this for quasars in particular.

Lerner points out some here;

[...]As in previous years, evidence continues to accumulate that quasar (QSO) redshifts are at least in part intrinsic, and that many QSOs are no where near as distant as the redshifts imply. Ryabinkov showed that there are periodicities in the absorption line spectra in QSOs, a pattern that would not be expected if the absorption lines were from intervening galaxies. Bell and McDiarmid showed that the angular motions in quasar jets are more easily understood if the QSOs are not at extreme distance.

There may be a plasma-based explanation of what could generate the redshifts within the atmosphere of the quasar. Sisir Roy et al have devoted such a theory and have compared it to quasar observations.

The redshift distribution of absorption-line systems in QSO spectra

Authors: A.I. Ryabinkov, A.D. Kaminker, D.A. Varshalovich

http://www.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0703277v1

An Abrupt Upper Envelope Cut-off in the Distribution of Angular Motions in Quasar Jets is Compatible in all Respects with a Simple Non-Relativistic Ejection Model

Authors: M.B. Bell, D.R McDiarmid

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0701093v1

Dynamic Multiple Scattering, Frequency Shift and Possible Effects on Quasar Astronomy

Authors: Sisir Roy, Malabika Roy, Joydip Ghosh, Menas Kafatos.

http://lanl.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0701071

Click to expand...

... snip ...

Source please.

So, many thanks Zeuzzz ... although this is quite mangled, convoluted, and so on, it makes the point I stated very well.

Try this for size:

Some redshifts are 'intrinsic' ... but there's no PC theory/model/wild idea on which objects, how much (redshift), or anything else.

Nor is there an unambiguous way to derive the absolute value of any 'intrinsic' redshift, from observation alone.

Ergo, the redshift of any object may contain an 'intrinsic redshift' of indeterminate value, from zero (or something negative, if you accept the full range of 'intrinsic redshift' papers) to at least 4 ... and there is no way to tell, either from theory or observation.

Among other things, this reduces Lerner's tired light, his CMB model, and his explanation for the observed abundances of D, He, and Li (and more), to noise.

It also completely trashes Peratt's work on radio galaxies and quasars.

And, if you accept the full range of published 'intrinsic redshifts', wipes out any 'electric star' PC ideas.

Alternatively, IF there are no 'intrinsic redshifts' EXCEPT FOR (some) quasars, THEN EITHER there is no PC theory for such redshifts (and certainly nothing observed in any lab), OR a wide range of observational inconsistencies are swallowed with nary a concern (or both).

In any case, not a single publication*, by any 'plasma cosmologist' (however you choose to define such a mythical creature) has ever even hinted that these inconsistencies exist (let alone that they are troubling).

* of course, I could be wrong; if any reader knows of any such publication (standard criterion applies - in a relevant peer-reviewed journal), please provide a reference.

DeiRenDopa · May 24, 2008

Dancing David said:
[/lurk]

Excuuuuuse me, but Arp's staitics are so bogus it is not even funny.

[lurk]

Indeed.

This is yet another of the inconsistencies which PC proponents are quite happy to live with (an inconsistency between textbook statistical methods and observational analysis is small beer compared with full-scale acceptance of a mechanism not demonstrated in any lab).

The more you look into it, the more examples of inconsistencies, of different kinds, you can find.

And to repeat: it's not so much the inconsistencies themselves, it's the complete lack of acknowledgment that they even exist, much less that they are troubling, or a spur for research, or ... these point to a core aspect of an alternative view of 'science' (in common parlance, 'the very definition of woo').

Reality Check · May 24, 2008

Zeuzzz: Thanks for the link to Peratt's "Electric space: Evolution of the plasma universe". It reminded me to read it again and find the following:

A galactic magnetic field of the order of B_G = 10^-9 - 10^-10T associated with a galactic dimension of 10²⁰ - 10²¹m suggests the galactic current be of the order I_G = 10¹⁷ - 10¹⁹A.
In the galactic dimensioned Birkeland current model, the width of a typical filament may be taken to be 35 kpc (~10²¹m), separated from neighbouring filaments by a similiar distance. ... may have an overall length between 35 Mpc and 2.5 Gpc with an average length of Mpc.

So now we know have an actual quote for the width and length of these galactic plasma filaments.

I do not have access to his "Synchrotron radiation spectrum for galactic-sized plasma filaments" paper but this proves that there is radiation and so it (and the filiaments) should be detectable. The abstract suggests that it is the CMB but this paper was published in 1990 (before WMAP) so needs to be evaluated again with the current data. I will asume that the synchrotron radiation spectrum derived is that of a black body at 2.73K but does the paper (or a later one) contain a power spectrum?

DeiRenDopa · May 24, 2008

I missed this the first time ... (I added some emphasis)

Zeuzzz said:
... snip ...

DeiRenDopa said:

Up one more level; Peratt's supercomputer models of 'spiral galaxy formation'.

As an interesting intellectual exercise, I'm sure it was (and still is) quite fun. However, it's pretty clear Peratt didn't try very hard to test his model for consistency with real spiral galaxies (beyond a 'rotation curve' and some pretty pictures)

Click to expand...

His model explains the origin and source of energy of double radio galaxies, the total magnitude of the radio flux observed, the measured flux density as a function of frequency, the observed isophotal morphologies, the spatially varying power law within a source, the polarization properties of the incoherent synchrotron radiation measured, and the lifetime and evolution of a source. See sections a, b, c, d, e, f and g in his publication "Evolution of the Plasma Universe: I. Double Radio Galaxies, Quasars, and Extragalactic Jets, which deals with each one respectively. And other sections of this addresses the formation of elliptical quasars, magnetically confined sheet electron beams we see in all galaxies, the emporal and spatial characteristics of the induction acceleration field, polarization and superluminosity, The induction accelerated Sheet Beam, formation of dust lanes due to the elliptical magnetic separatrix, and many other aspects. http://plasmascience.net/tpu/downloadsCosmo/Peratt86TPS-I.pdf (IEEE Transactions on Plasma Sci. Vol. PS-14)

Another publication, http://plasmascience.net/tpu/downloadsCosmo/Peratt86TPS-II.pdf (IEEE Transactions on Plasma Sci. Vol. PS-14) looks at;

... snip ...
The importance of electromagnetic
effects in describing both the bulk- and fine-detail
structure in the velocity curves of spiral galaxies is also
reported in Section V.
... snip ...

Click to expand...

In Electric space: Evolution of the plasma universe (Astrophysics and Space Science, Volume 244) he expands on it further, comparing the H-structure of his galaxy model to what we observe in galaxies, just as predicted by the supercomputer, along with many other aspects, and in Plasma and the Universe: Large Scale Dynamics, Filamentation, and Radiation (Astrophysics and Space Science, Volume 227) he elaborated further on many other aspects also.

and heres another http://plasmascience.net/tpu/downloads/Peratt_RolePartBeams.pdf (Laser and Particle Beams, vol.6, part.3) and there are others...

So i'm really not sure why you said "it's pretty clear Peratt didn't try very hard to test his model for consistency with real spiral galaxies (beyond a 'rotation curve' and some pretty pictures)", this sort of comment just comes across as a bit naive... and bit of a hand wave to be quite frank...

... snip ...

Er, Zeuzzz, I don't quite know how to break this to you ...

... the papers you cite are either OT (my comment was about spiral galaxies, not the shopping list you recited), or quite consistent with what I wrote (pretty pictures - there is no attempt to match the scales between model and observation^, much less explain how his model test particles correspond to visual waveband emission from stars - and rotation curves). There is one aspect I had omitted (it is not, as far as I know, in Peratt's first paper on spiral galaxy rotation curves) - expected signatures of galactic magnetic fields in emission/absorption by diffuse plasma/gas, specifically, CIV (this is a quite interesting topic in its own right; Peratt needs CIV for his model to be consistent, yet despite years of searching, by lots of people, no convincing examples have been found).

But you see Zeuzzz, to go back to a point I made earlier, there's pretty firm observational evidence that spiral galaxies in general, possess (an incomplete list):

* a central bulge
* a nucleus
* a thin disk
* a thick disk
* a halo.

There is also pretty good observational evidence that spiral galaxies possess stars, with masses ranging from ~0.1 to ~10 sols. Ditto that the surface mass density (of the thin, and thick, disks) varies in characteristic ways.

Then there's the strong observational evidence on the velocity dispersion of the stars and ISM (in several phases), in the thin disk, the thick disk, etc.

And so on.

Yet for reasons surely known only to Peratt, he chose to ignore almost all these well-known, well-established observations (or interpretations, if you prefer).

Now waaaaay back in this thread, TubbyThin wrote about what an alternative needs to do in order to be considered viable, within normal science.

One of the things it needs to do is account for the sum total of ALL observational results within its domain.

In the case of Peratt's alternative, that means ALL relevant observations concerning spiral galaxies. He doesn't get to pick and choose and declare his alternative viable because is matches his arbitrary selections.

So, by conveniently ignoring whole swathes of stuff (read the papers, he doesn't once mention that there are a myriad other things his model needs to address, much less make an attempt at doing so), Peratt is simultaneously blowing a raspberry at astronomers and declaring that in his version of science, consistency is an optional requirement.

^ by the way, if he had tried to match (distance) scales, then his work would be completely trashed by full-scale acceptance of 'intrinsic redshifts' (if only because all his scales - including those within the MW - would turn to noise).

DeiRenDopa · May 24, 2008

Reality Check said:
Zeuzzz: Thanks for the link to Peratt's "Electric space: Evolution of the plasma universe". It reminded me to read it again and find the following:

So now we know have an actual quote for the width and length of these galactic plasma filaments.

I do not have access to his "Synchrotron radiation spectrum for galactic-sized plasma filaments" paper but this proves that there is radiation and so it (and the filiaments) should be detectable. The abstract suggests that it is the CMB but this paper was published in 1990 (before WMAP) so needs to be evaluated again with the current data. I will asume that the synchrotron radiation spectrum derived is that of a black body at 2.73K but does the paper (or a later one) contain a power spectrum?

(emphasis added)

There are at least two: the Lerner one (or ones) that Zeuzzz cited way back when (they're available from his website), and one by Peratt and a grad student William Peter (though that may be the precursor, as it was published in 1988).

The one that does the best is one of Lerner's ... it claims an 85% match with the COBE SED (i.e. Lerner predicts something that's not quite a blackbody; his exact words are somewhat different, I think). No plasma cosmologist has ever published anything on the CMB angular power spectrum, nor even on the dipole (!). There are also no PC papers on estimates of the CMB temperature in high-z clouds, nor the Sunyaev-Zel'dovich effect, nor the CMB's observed polarisation, nor ...

I wrote several posts on this earlier in this thread ... Zeuzzz didn't even acknowledge any of them, much less attempt a response ("Every single concrete [PC] idea which has been put forward [by Zeuzzz or BAC] - of which there have not been many - has either been debunked [...] [Zeuzzz] runs away whenever he gets too thoroughly trapped." - I wonder who wrote that, and when?)

zosima · May 24, 2008

I just went on the Plasma Universe website and noted that they have a long list of Peer Review articles that support Plasma Cosmology. Of course none of the articles supporting the PC conclusion were published after 1996.

If we're going to resurrect dead scientific theories I have some favorites I'd like to nominate...Lets bring back Aether theory, or the belief that proteins carry heritable information.

The Man · May 24, 2008

leonAzul said:
Patent goat blather. The plasma state of matter at STP is only achievable with massive amounts of energy input. To the best of my knowledge, all of the microchips in my equipment were manufactured at or near STP. And no plasma involved The preponderance of research into the dynamics of plasma has been conducted at or near STP, whilst the bulk of matter in the plasma state exists in the rest of the universe...

Back on topic--or near to it.

Periodically re-examining the quality of our observations is not woo. It is the very essence of the scientific method.

It would be better if you were to expand the best of your knowledge. Production processes for the manufacture of microchips almost never involve STP (standard temperature and pressure), mostly significantly higher temperatures, both higher and lower pressures (including near vacuums) of various gasses and as mentioned plasmas.

http://www.scisys.com/hdocs/articles4.html

http://www.semiconductorglossary.com/default.asp?searchterm=plasma+etching

http://www.research.ibm.com/journal/rd/431/armacost.html

Re-examining the quality of observations is not “woo” trying to introduce as an unknown, into those observations, a state of matter that it is our understanding and regular use of that makes our modern technology possible is “woo”.

Wangler · May 24, 2008

DeiRenDopa said:
Thanks for this.

What I was really getting at is that CDM does not, necessarily, have anything to do with cosmology. Further, historically, it was not 'invented' to address any cosmological issue, observation, etc.

So, both logically and historically, CDM is not related to the contemporary cosmological models in the way your post stated (or inferred), nor in the way RC meant with respect to PC.

DRD, I accept your position, and this correction on my initial comment.

Keep in mind that current cosmology is married to CDM in certain aspects, which I think is what you were getting at anyhow.

The Man · May 24, 2008

robinson said:
Reality Check said:

Matter in the plasma state tends to emit radiation.

Click to expand...

The Man said:

Who said “all plasmas emit radiation”?

Click to expand...

So, who said all plasmas emit radiation?

The fact that you misrepresented what Reality Check said to create a straw man stumbling block was evident before.

robinson said:
From recent observations with our new instruments, it is becoming obvious that we know very little about plasma in space.

We know even less about magnetic fields and electric currents in space. The problem is observing something (that is very far away), that doesn't emit any radiation. We are limited to measuring and viewing secondary effects. .

So, you have no problem inferring things from their observable effects?

robinson said:
In a weird way, it is the same problem with black holes, that are not "feeding". Without something else interacting with a black hole, it is invisible. Same for plasma, electric currents and magnetic fields, all of which may be connected.

Of course this may be off topic, concerning plasma cosmology, which is still a nebulous topic.

Actually very much on topic, plasmas, electric currents and magnetic fields tend to be connected because plasmas tend to interact with and generate electromagnetic fields resulting in and from their tendency to emit electromagnetic radiation.

robinson · May 24, 2008

The Man said:
So, who said all plasmas emit radiation?

Nobody said that. I said, and I quote:

robinson said:
We don't know that much about plasma in space. Without experiments, we can't really say that all plasmas emit radiation.

See? I didn't say "all plasmas emit radiation", nor did anybody else. You said it, but as a question.

The Man said:
The fact that you misrepresented what Reality Check said to create a straw man stumbling block was evident before.

Only in your mind. What RC said was, and I quote:

Reality Check said:
Matter in the plasma state tends to emit radiation. This means that we can detect it and plug it into our calculations for the velocity dispersion curves for galaxies and the behavior of galaxies in galactic clusters.

Not only do some plasmas not emit anything, some are completely opaque to all radiation. Then there are the unknowns. Both in deep space, as well as within stars, there exist plasmas we know almost nothing about.

According to current theory.

During the first few days of the universe, the universe was in full thermal equilibrium, with photons being continually emitted and absorbed, giving the radiation a blackbody spectrum. As the universe expanded, it cooled to a temperature at which photons could no longer be created or destroyed. The temperature was still high enough for electrons and nuclei to remain unbound, however, and photons were constantly "reflected" from these free electrons through a process called Thomson scattering. Because of this repeated scattering, the early universe was opaque to light.

^WP
This is essential to the theory about the Cosmic Background radiation.

Of course some may try to call unbound electrons and nuclei something besides plasma, which is an interesting topic in and of itself.

When the temperature fell to a few thousand Kelvin, electrons and nuclei began to combine to form atoms, a process known as recombination. Since photons scatter infrequently from neutral atoms, radiation decoupled from matter when nearly all the electrons had recombined, at the epoch of last scattering, 379,000 years after the Big Bang.

^WP
Different authors describe it in different ways, but the general idea is that until the plasma reached around 3000K, it was opaque to photons.

Which is a bit hard to believe.

But this belongs in the other topic.

DeiRenDopa · May 24, 2008

More on Peratt, consistency, etc; from Zeuzzz' post...

Zeuzzz said:
... snip ...

His model explains the origin and source of energy of double radio galaxies, the total magnitude of the radio flux observed, the measured flux density as a function of frequency, the observed isophotal morphologies, the spatially varying power law within a source, the polarization properties of the incoherent synchrotron radiation measured, and the lifetime and evolution of a source. See sections a, b, c, d, e, f and g in his publication "Evolution of the Plasma Universe: I. Double Radio Galaxies, Quasars, and Extragalactic Jets, which deals with each one respectively. And other sections of this addresses the formation of elliptical quasars, magnetically confined sheet electron beams we see in all galaxies, the emporal and spatial characteristics of the induction acceleration field, polarization and superluminosity, The induction accelerated Sheet Beam, formation of dust lanes due to the elliptical magnetic separatrix, and many other aspects. http://plasmascience.net/tpu/downloadsCosmo/Peratt86TPS-I.pdf (IEEE Transactions on Plasma Sci. Vol. PS-14)

Another publication, http://plasmascience.net/tpu/downloadsCosmo/Peratt86TPS-II.pdf (IEEE Transactions on Plasma Sci. Vol. PS-14) looks at;

The gross radio properties of galaxies are reviewed in
Section II. Section III describes a transistion through the
following sequence of cosmic objects: double radio galaxy
to radioquasar; radioquasar to radioquiet quasi-stellar
objects (QSO's) [9]; radioquiet QSO's to peculiar and
Seyfert spiral galaxies; and peculiar and Seyfert galaxies
to normal and barred galaxies. The various classifications
of elliptical and spiral galaxies are discussed in Sections
IV and V, respectively. The importance of electromagnetic
effects in describing both the bulk- and fine-detail
structure in the velocity curves of spiral galaxies is also
reported in Section V. Multiple interacting galaxies are
studied in Section VI. The chemical composition and the
distribution of neutral hydrogen in galaxies is discussed
in Section VII. Section VIII covers the Alfven-Carlqvist
model for star formation in pinched plasma filaments
while Section IX reports the extension of three-dimensional
electromagnetic particle simulation techniques to
include gravitational forces with the formation of stars.

Click to expand...

In Electric space: Evolution of the plasma universe (Astrophysics and Space Science, Volume 244) he expands on it further, comparing the H-structure of his galaxy model to what we observe in galaxies, just as predicted by the supercomputer, along with many other aspects, and in Plasma and the Universe: Large Scale Dynamics, Filamentation, and Radiation (Astrophysics and Space Science, Volume 227) he elaborated further on many other aspects also.

and heres another http://plasmascience.net/tpu/downloads/Peratt_RolePartBeams.pdf (Laser and Particle Beams, vol.6, part.3) and there are others...

... snip ...

It seems to me (please comment Zeuzzz) that there are two key Peratt papers, the two 1986 ones ("Evolution of the plasma universe. I - Double radio galaxies, quasars, and extragalactic jets", and "Evolution of the plasma universe. II - The formation of systems of galaxies") ... almost all the key points in the later papers are simply rehashes of what's in these two.

Now look at the "Electric space: Evolution of the plasma universe" paper ... the very last paragraph before the Acknowledgments ...

Notice something very interesting?

(to be continued)

The Man · May 24, 2008

robinson said:
Nobody said that. I said, and I quote:

See? I didn't say "all plasmas emit radiation", nor did anybody else. You said it, but as a question. .

Actually you did, the phrase “all plasmas emit radiation” is right there in your quote as it is in my question. Are you now saying that you did not use those words?

robinson said:
Only in your mind. What RC said was, and I quote:

No, from what you wrote in an effort to communicate what was in your mind.

Oh that’s right I forgot about you preference for “dark postings” so we should not pay attention to what you do say but what you do not say. Well, wait, you said that you did not say “all plasmas emit radiation” so, that must have been what you meant when you did not say it.

robinson said:
Not only do some plasmas not emit anything, some are completely opaque to all radiation. Then there are the unknowns. Both in deep space, as well as within stars, there exist plasmas we know almost nothing about.

According to current theory.

^WP
This is essential to the theory about the Cosmic Background radiation.

Of course some may try to call unbound electrons and nuclei something besides plasma, which is an interesting topic in and of itself.

^WP
Different authors describe it in different ways, but the general idea is that until the plasma reached around 3000K, it was opaque to photons.

Which is a bit hard to believe.

Why would that be hard to believe if as you assert.

robinson said:
Not only do some plasmas not emit anything, some are completely opaque to all radiation. Then there are the unknowns. Both in deep space, as well as within stars, there exist plasmas we know almost nothing about.

But of course since you said it, means that you do not mean it. Now I understand why you find it “hard to believe”, which you didn’t mean when you said that anyway.

robinson said:
But this belongs in the other topic.

Are you sure you do not mean that?

robinson · May 24, 2008

That must be one of those dark postings. I can't see anything of substance, yet there it is, so it must mean something.

Or maybe it is a Dark Troll. A post that sucks so much, nothing can escape it.

I wonder which topic the question about opaque plasma should go in ... maybe yet another topic is required.

Zeuzzz · May 24, 2008

zosima said:
I just went on the Plasma Universe website and noted that they have a long list of Peer Review articles that support Plasma Cosmology. Of course none of the articles supporting the PC conclusion were published after 1996.

If we're going to resurrect dead scientific theories I have some favorites I'd like to nominate...Lets bring back Aether theory, or the belief that proteins carry heritable information.

That's because the IEEE's copyright policy makes it hard for them to put up any papers from the most recent journals, you'll mainly only see ones from before 1998 online in full. Most of the interesting ones I've read are the most recent ones, from 2007 onwards.

IEEE Transction on Plasma Science
# Laser & Particle Beams Vol.6 Part 3. August 1988.
Special Issue in Honor of the 80th Birthday of Hannes Alfvén
# Vol 14 No 6 (Dec 1986)
1st Special Issue on Space and Cosmic Plasma
# Vol 17 No 2 (Apr 1989)
2nd Special Issue on Space and Cosmic Plasma
Golden anniversary of magnetic storms and the aurora, dedicated to Hannes Alfv�n in recognition of his 80th birthday
# Vol 18 No 1 (Feb 1990)
3rd Special Issue on Space and Cosmic Plasma
Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Plasma Cosmology (First Workshop on Plasma Cosmology), La Jolla, California, USA, 20-22 February 1989
# v20 n1 Selected articles
# Vol 20 No 6 (Dec 1992)
4th Special Issue on Space and Cosmic Plasma
Plasma experiments in the laboratory and in space.
# Astrophysics and Space Science 227 (1995), Special issue Journal dedicated to Professor Hannes Alfvén
# Vol 28 No 6 (Dec 2000)
5th Special Issue on Space and Cosmic Plasma (Space Weather)
# v29 n2 Selected articles
# v31 n5 Selected articles
# Vol 31 No 6 (Dec 2004)
6th Special Issue on Space and Cosmic Plasma
# v33 n5 Selected articles
# Vol 35 No 4 Part 1 (Aug 2007)
7th Special Issue on Space and Cosmic Plasma

The Man · May 24, 2008

robinson said:
I wonder which topic the question about opaque plasma should go in ... maybe yet another topic is required.

So you aren’t actually sure that you didn’t mean it when you said.

robinson said:
But this belongs in the other topic.

I do not know how much there would be to discuss on that new thread since your own post provided the reason for opaque plasmas, Thomson scattering.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomson_scattering

So it results from the plasma’s tendency to interact with and emit electromagnetic radiation. That “huge stumbling block of current physics” as you put it.

ETA: See also Compton scattering

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compton_scattering

Zeuzzz · May 24, 2008

DeiRenDopa said:
Um ... er ...

Did you see the leetle, teensy-weensy word "hypothetical" in there?

So, to clear this up, I was using a hypothetical (mustn't shout now) example that TT introduced, to myself introduce a general point ... before going on to make several specific points ...

So you have to use hypothetical inconsistencies with PC?

why not just quickly list a real one, instead of one you make up? that way I can respond with what I think the answer is.

Whoosh!

Yep, that's the sound of the point I was making going right over your head ...

I asked if I had misinterpretted your statement, and this doesn't really resolve what you meant by saying "(I doubt there were many, if any, astronomers among those who reviewed his papers before recommending publication, for example)."

So your saying that no astronomers reviewed Peratts publications on his galaxy model? so there would have been no atsronomers at the Journal of Astrophsyics and Space Science? correct?

You mean to say that you don't (or didn't) actually read the material you cited?!?!?

HINT: try googling on "While this model has not been developed to the point of making detailed predictions of the angular spectrum of the CBR anisotropy"

Yes I have, but Lerner does not say what you did originally at all in that paper, to finish off that quote and the bit you missed out "While this model has not been developed to the point of making detailed predictions of the angular spectrum of the CBR anisotropy, it has accurately matched the spectrum of the CBR using the best-quality data set from COBE[27]. This fit, it should be noted, involved only three free pamenters and achieved a probability of 85%."

And you have to actually say why the angular power spectrum of the CMB is important and disproves PC, lack of explanation over one specific componet does not falsify the theory. The Big Bang does not explain, for example, how radio emmission is produced in the Jupiter-Io plasma torus, but that doesnt falsify the theory, as the Big Bang doesn't need to explain this.

Source please.

So, many thanks Zeuzzz ... although this is quite mangled, convoluted, and so on, it makes the point I stated very well.

Try this for size:

Some redshifts are 'intrinsic' ... but there's no PC theory/model/wild idea on which objects, how much (redshift), or anything else.

Nor is there an unambiguous way to derive the absolute value of any 'intrinsic' redshift, from observation alone.

Just search the text, it will pop up, and I said in that post its from Lerner. And commenting on them would be nice too, considering they are relevant to the subject at hand, and your responce widely was not...

DeiRenDopa said:
This is yet another of the inconsistencies which PC proponents are quite happy to live with (an inconsistency between textbook statistical methods and observational analysis is small beer compared with full-scale acceptance of a mechanism not demonstrated in any lab).

There is no inconsistency. They have not said that any particular one is the mechansim, they have considered many of the possible alternatives than can explain the observed anomalies. Thats how science works. You dont just come up with your theory of what redshifts represent, and then say that this is it, no alternative should be investigated. And the mechansisms they have investigated have been investigated for the very reason they have been tested in a lab.

But you missed a very large part of the point .... the rather extreme inconsistency of trashing CDM (say) because no CDM particles have been observed in the lab while at the same time embracing without the slightest murmur of concern an idea that was not (at the time) backed by even the faintest hint of anything in the lab (and, subsequently, interesting ideas as you mention continue to fail ... no lab mechanism).

In everyday human interaction terms, this smacks of hypocrisy of the most egregious kind; in scientific terms, it is as blatant a declaration as I can imagine possible to make that serious inconsistency is quite acceptable as a core principle in PC.

CREIL is a directly testable phenomena, so is the wolf effect, and the others. Thats why they have been investigated by PC proponents.

Heres a few relevant to quasars and redshifts. I'm surprised you had not heard of CREIL, or the Wolf effect, so i'll provide a few links. And commenting on the above papers I quoted from Lerners website would be nice, or the heliospheric current circuit, or

Optical redshifts due to correlations in quasar plasmas http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplore/login.jsp?url=/iel5/27/28301/01265342.pdf?arnumber=1265342

The Wolf effect and the Redshift of Quasars http://aps.arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/9807/9807205v1.pdf

Redshifts of cosmological neutrinos as definitive experimental test of Doppler versus non-Doppler redshifts http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freeabs_all.jsp?arnumber=1265343

Theory of the quantification of the redshifts http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0307/0307140v1.pdf

Propagation of electromagnetic waves in space plasma.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0401/0401529v1.pdf

No-Blueshift Condition in Wolf Mechanism
http://www.springerlink.com/content/p3146040w6376854/

Multiple Scattering Theory in Wolf’s Mechanism and Implications in QSO Redshift
http://www.springerlink.com/content/k7q491t932816v10/

How the BAL quasars are quiet
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0208405

International Workshop on Redshift Mechanisms in Astrophysics
and Cosmology, 2007
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0701/0701061v1.pdf

Evidence for Intrinsic Redshifts in Normal Spiral Galaxies
http://www.springerlink.com/content/u52qh80262484j07/

Explaining the pearl necklace of SNR 1987A by coherent optics
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0702075

The more you look into it, the more examples of inconsistencies, of different kinds, you can find.

And I've just noticed another engenius tactic you continually use DRD. Scientific publications dont have to be consistent, people form hypothesis and test their hypothesis, most separate scientific hypothesis are inconsistant. I could go through all the twenty completely different explanations that have been provided for the heating of the corona, and the acceleration of the solar wind, and keep claiming, like you do, "The fact that all the theories are not consistant with each other is as blatant a declaration as I can imagine that serious inconsistency is quite acceptable as a core principle in Solar physics" And I could do this in any other area of science too. So please refrain from perpetuating this argument, as it demonstrates a severe lack of understanding of how science works.

Tubbythin · May 24, 2008

Zeuzzz said:
So you have to use hypothetical inconsistencies with PC? why not just quickly list a real one, instead of one you make up? that way I can respond with what I think the answer is.

Nice way to dodge my question. I'll rephrase it.
What makes you think you have the right to criticize professional astronomers for not looking in to your supposed alternatives when you freely admit to being ignorant in the whole area?

Zeuzzz · May 24, 2008

Tubbythin said:
Nice way to dodge my question. I'll rephrase it.
What makes you think you have the right to criticize professional astronomers for not looking in to your supposed alternatives when you freely admit to being ignorant in the whole area?

What makes me think I have the right? The right to have an opinion, maybe.

Just pointing out that there are other forms of energy other than nuclear fusion.

Tubbythin · May 24, 2008

Zeuzzz said:
What makes me think I have the right? The right to have an opinion, maybe.

Just pointing out that there are other forms of energy other than nuclear fusion.

Yeah. Some people used to think the Sun was made of coal. You wouldn't honestly suggest astronomers should spend their time considering the coal hypothesis would you? You have no models for alternatives to the p-p chain, just a few buzz words. And yet you criticize astronomers for ignoring your model-less buzz words. What makes you think your alternatives are any better than the coal hypothesis?

Zeuzzz · May 24, 2008

Tubbythin said:
You have no models for alternatives to the p-p chain, just a few buzz words. And yet you criticize astronomers for ignoring your model-less buzz words. What makes you think your alternatives are any better than the coal hypothesis?

I critisise atronomers for seemingly not considering any viable alternative, from what I've seen. Either they have a reason to not consider them, or they should. I may be wrong, and if you know of any papers that rule out any other potential energy sources, or the various different fusion methods, then post it. I accept that the sun could be powered by H-fusion at its core, but as far as I can see it could also be powered by other energy sources aswell as this, I dont see why it has to be just one, you could have like Z-pinch fusion, electrical power, plasma focus, resitive heating, any of these could also contribute too. I dont belive directly any individual one of them over the other, I would just like to either see them ruled out, or at least considered. Thats my opinion.

Tubbythin · May 24, 2008

Zeuzzz said:
I critisise atronomers for seemingly not considering any alternative, from what I've seen. I may be wrong, and if you know of any papers that rule out any other potential energy sources, or the various different fusion methods, then post it.

There have to be alternative models first!

I accept that the sun could be powered by H-fusion at its core, but as far as I can see it could also be powered by other energy sources aswell as this, I dont see why it has to be just one, you could have like Z-pinch fusion, electrical power, plasma focus, resitive heating, any of these could also contribute too.

Ok, Z-pinch fusion is fusion at the surface right? I can rule that out immediately (and any other surface fusion). Surface fusion would not give the Sun a blackbody spectrum.
As for the others, provide a model and I'll have a look at it.

Zeuzzz · May 24, 2008

Tubbythin said:
There have to be alternative models first!

Do there? How could science progress at all if people could only work on already existing theories?

And all the well known energy sources on earth provide the "model" so to speak, your just applying it in a different place than usually considered.

Ok, Z-pinch fusion is fusion at the surface right? I can rule that out immediately (and any other surface fusion). Surface fusion would not give the Sun a blackbody spectrum.

I find that explanation highly unlikely since the surface of the sun is not really dense enough for Z-pinch fusion. If the current density was higher than currently thought, then this would be a contendor, but it would be much more likely in the centre of the sun where the pressure and potential current can become high enough. But of course, we know that this one idea would not account for hardly any significant fraction, the sun would just implode inwards if all its energy was being created on the surface

And its also very hard to imagine how convection functions in a completely surface powered star :eye-poppi

Plasma Cosmology - Woo or not

Banned

Penultimate Amazing

Illuminator

Master Poster

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Banned

Banned

Master Poster

Master Poster

Master Poster

Fiend God

Master Poster

Master Poster

Illuminator

Banned

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Master Poster

Master Poster

Penultimate Amazing

Master Poster

Master Poster

Muse

Unbanned zombie poster

Master Poster

Unbanned zombie poster

Banned

Master Poster

Unbanned zombie poster

Banned

Banned

Unbanned zombie poster

Banned

Illuminator

Banned

Illuminator

Banned

Illuminator

Banned