Plasma Cosmology - Woo or not

BeAChooser said:
And what is it that apparently makes you and your friends believe the material observed in the Bullet Cluster case isn't plasma at more than 1% ionization? Keep in mind that the mainstream says 99.99% PLUS of the matter we actually see is plasma. And keep in mind that everytime the mainstream looks closely at a patch of "gas" ... it almost always turns out to be plasma. So why ASSUME the patch in the Bullet Cluster is neutral gas and not plasma? :)
Click to expand...
Nice try BAC, but no cigar ...

Here is a question of mine, asked twice now, that you have chosen to ignore:

For the gas/plasma in question (that which pervades rich clusters of galaxies [such as the Bullet Cluster]), what - specifically and quantitatively - are the differences in those properties (gas vs plasma), as they pertain to astronomical observations of those clusters, or potential observations of those clusters?

Would you please answer it now?
 
DeiRenDopa said:
Tidying up a loose end ...

One of the many inconsistencies that makes PC, as presented in this thread by Z, woo is redshift.

Actually, it's a set of related inconsistencies.

Start with observation: for galaxies (and other objects) beyond the Local Group (the MW, M31, M33, the Magellanic Clouds, etc), distance and redshift are closely related - the greater the redshift, the greater the distance. This was first noticed by Hubble*, nearly a century ago now, and the distance-redshift relationship is today called the Hubble relationship. There's some scatter about the trend line, and a quantitative measure of that scatter correlates well with the objects membership of groups and clusters (the richer the cluster, the greater the scatter). To the extent that they have been measured, redshifts in different wavebands are the same (for the same object) - a galaxy's redshift measured in the x-ray waveband is the same as it is in the UV, or IR, or microwave, or radio waveband. Further, the atomic (or molecular) transitions that give rise to the lines used to measure redshift are many, from highly ionised iron, to moderately ionised oxygen, to neutral CO and H; hence the physical environments in which the excited species exist span an amazing range of temperature, density, and so on. Those are the observational results.

As Plasma Cosmology (PC) is universal in its scope (at least according to Z, per his posts in this thread), a good, consistent (PC) explanation of these observations should be available.

Surprisingly, there is no such explanation.

Instead (per Z anyway) there is a mishmash of creative ideas, speculations, and nonsense, with no apparent attempt by any PC proponent to produce anything definitive.

Curiously, most of these PC explanations involve mechanisms or processes that have never been seen in any lab here on Earth, a fact which would, no doubt, cause Alfvén to turn in his grave (a more egregious violation of his actualistic approach would be hard to imagine!); the ones that have been observed in labs pretty obviously do not apply to galaxies or objects whose redshifts have been measured in widely separated wavebands (say, radio and visual).

Even more curious, perhaps, is how uncritically PC proponents (including Z) embrace the published papers of Arp, Bell, et al ... curious because (among other things) there's even less in the way of potential (plasma) mechanisms for Arpian 'intrinsic redshift' than there is for that of the Hubble relationship**, and because if there really were such 'intrinsic redshifts' most of the works of most PCers (such as Peratt and Lerner) would have to be extensively edited, if not completely re-written.

In a way, the uncritical acceptance of Arpian 'intrinsic redshifts' for quasars is a rather nice summary of PC as a whole: not only are there no papers by any of the founders of PC on the existence of such an effect (recall that PC proponents are very big on 'predictions'), not only are there no plasma-based mechanisms for such an effect, but PC proponents are quite unconcerned about lensed quasars, which provide about as clear an observation-based case as you could ask for that quasars are at distances consistent with their (Hubble relationship) redshifts (example)!

Saying this another way: uncritical acceptance of inconsistencies, of many kinds and at many levels (and the extreme reluctance to even acknowledge that any inconsistencies exist), shows that whatever PC is, it is not a science or based on science.

Can we get on to new questions now? Like whether PC is more akin to religion or to conspiracy theories?

* actually it was almost certainly noticed by someone else earlier, but Hubble gets the credit (for being the first to publish a paper on it?)

** with one exception: AFAIK it is possible (and maybe even easy) to construct models for some subsets of the line spectra of unresolved quasars using standard physics; however such models are inconsistent with more general observations of quasars
Click to expand...
One more item, of the 'tidying up' kind ...

I think quasi-stellar objects ('quasi-stellar radio source' later 'quasar', and 'QSO') were first recognised as high redshift objects in 1962 or 1963, though some had been claimed a few years earlier. In any case, within a year or so 'faint nebulosity' was observed associated with at least two quasars (not counting 3C 273's famous jet), and before long such faint fuzz around the point source was interpreted as the quasar's host galaxy.

As far as I know, while several 'alternative' explanations of quasar redshift (such as the laundry list in an earlier post by Z) might be plausible for a true point source, none would work for objects that each extend over hundreds or thousands of parsecs.

So, does the faint nebulosity surrounding the very bright quasar point source have the same (or similar) redshift as the quasar itself?

Yes it does. This 1980 paper may report the earliest observations of this (no surprise that it's 3C 273!), and this 2008 paper illustrates just how far observational techniques have come, in terms of obtaining spectra of the host galaxy of a quasar (here is a Gemini Observatory article with a non-technical summary).

Just one more set of good observations that all relevant PC theories and hypotheses needs to match ...
 
Is this a "Plasma Cosmology" paper?

Ideal magnetohydrodynamic simulation of magnetic bubble expansion as a model for extragalactic radio lobes

Wei Liu, Scott C. Hsu, Hui Li, Shengtai Li, Alan G. Lynn
Nonlinear ideal magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) simulations of the propagation and expansion of a magnetic "bubble" plasma into a lower density, weakly-magnetized background plasma are presented. These simulations mimic the geometry and parameters of the Plasma Bubble Expansion Experiment (PBEX) [A. G. Lynn, Y. Zhang, S. C. Hsu, H. Li, W. Liu, M. Gilmore, and C. Watts, Bull. Amer. Phys. Soc. {\bf 52}, 53 (2007)], which is studying magnetic bubble expansion as a model for extra-galactic radio lobes. The simulations predict several key features of the bubble evolution. First, the direction of bubble expansion depends on the ratio of the bubble toroidal to poloidal magnetic field, with a higher ratio leading to expansion predominantly in the direction of propagation and a lower ratio leading to expansion predominantly normal to the direction of propagation. Second, an MHD shock and a trailing slow-mode compressible MHD wavefront are formed ahead of the bubble as it propagates into the background plasma. Third, the bubble expansion and propagation develop asymmetries about its propagation axis due to reconnection facilitated by numerical resistivity and to inhomogeneous angular momentum transport mainly due to the background magnetic field. These results will help guide the initial experiments and diagnostic measurements on PBEX.
Click to expand...
 
Readers of this thread who have only minimal knowledge of the use and application of plasma physics in astrophysics may have formed the impression that the PIC simulations reported by Peratt in the ~4 papers Z has cited many times are the only plasma physics simulations that are astrophysically relevant.

By now such readers should have formed the opinion that this is highly unlikely to be the case, but may be wondering what sort of plasma physics computer code simulations, of relevance to astrophysics, there are.

Athena is one such recent code. Some interesting things:

* Athena is open source, and free

* an older code is called ZEUS

* the authors (developers of Athena) do not cite Peratt

* the preprint does not once mention "plasma cosmology".

Given the availability of astrophysically relevant simulation codes that incorporate plasma physics, I guess PC proponents can offer no excuses for the decade+ long lack of published, quantitative work based on PC assumptions ... and maybe in the next year or so we will see arXiv preprints - by robinson, BAC, or Zeuzzzzz (or even Thornhill, Scott, or Lerner!) - reporting results from their use of Athena.
 
Just to remind everyone that the question that this thread was started with has been answered:
The "plasma cosmology" supported by Zeuzzz, BeAChooser and others is definitely woo.

The scientific theory of Plasma Cosmology is that of Hannes Olof Gösta Alfvén. This was expanded upon by Anthony Peratt, especially in the area of galaxy formation.

But the "plasma cosmology" that has emerged in this thread is not Plasma Cosmology and is not a scientific theory. Since it's proponents claim that it is a scientific theory that makes it woo.

The definition of "plasma cosmology"is that it is a collection of scientific theories (not one consistent scientific theory) with a common thread. This thread seems to be that the theory either emphasizes the contribution of plasma in the universe or is a steady state cosmological theory.



This collection allows the addition of any new theory that matches the criteria regardless of consistency with existing theories in the collection. Thus the collection allows:
  • Multiple inconsistent theories on cosmological redshift.
  • Multiple inconsistent theories on the cosmic microwave background.
  • Multiple inconsistent theories on the structure of the universe.
  • Multiple inconsistent theories on stellar formation.
The PC collection includes:
  • 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
  • Peratt's explanation of the CMB, 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).
  • Baryonic Cold Skeleton of the Universe (Kukushkin, Alexander B. and Rantsev-Kartinov, Valentin A.)
  • Also the original Plasma Cosmology of Hannes Alfvén?
  • All standard plasma theories.
  • Electric Universe (see the latest posts).
  • Iron Sun?
  • etc. (I will add to this list as this thread progresses since no one really knows what theories are included)
There seems to be an emphasis on the extension of laboratory experiments in theory to large sizes via plasma scaling (ignoring the problems with this - see the Astrophysical application section). The observational evidence for this scaling has some gaps in it.

pc completely forgets about the laboratory experiments on gravity that can be scaled in theory without any problems to cosmic scales. The observational evidence for this scaling has some gaps in it.
 
BeAChooser said:
Plasma is distinguished from gas BY SCIENTISTS because it has very different properties. And the fact that the mainstream (and you) insist on repeatedly calling material gas that is in fact plasma is perhaps part of the problem the mainstream and you are having with understanding the nature of the universe. :)
Click to expand...


BeAChooser said:
ROTFLOL! The definition of a plasma is "ionized gas".
Click to expand...

From the latter of the two quotes it would seem BAC believes any degree of ionization makes a gas a plasma. But the air we breathe is subject to ionizing radiation and so is ionized to a small degree. So that would make air a plasma. So from the former quote we must assume that air behaves very differently to a gas!
 
robinson said:
If it isn't considered a plasma, then it isn't a plasma. That is how science works. If the majority believes it isn't plasma, then it can't be a plasma. Wikiality at work.
Click to expand...


The Man said:
Actually, that is not how it works, if it fits the definition of a plasma then it is a plasma, regardless of what you (or any perceived majority) consider or call it. Plasma is just a highly ionized gas (which is its definition). Whether it is in a plasma TV, used in the plasma etching to make the integrated circuits you use every day (even now in seeing this) or in astrophysical plasmas. If it is a highly ionized gas, then it is by definition, a plasma.
Click to expand...


robinson said:
The definition is decided upon by consensus. That is the very definition of wikiality. Like when Pluto stopped being a planet. because the definition of a planet was changed. By consensus. By some ruling body of scientist.

So Pluto is no longer a planet. By definition.

It is the same thing with a meter, a kilo, or any other made up term/definition. It is what it is, because we say it is.
Click to expand...


Funny I do not recall voting for, joining or opposing any consensus of any of those definitions or classifications and I doubt you did either, yet you choose to define that as a majority or consensus. “Ruling body of scientist”, wouldn’t that make it possibly a minority decision even among scientists. So I guess “Webster’s” would be a ruling body of Lexicographers, some more definitions, you, me and a majority never did form a consensus on. You have only confirmed what I said before that the definition is “regardless of what you (or any perceived majority) consider or call it”.


robinson said:
Much like Plasma Cosmology itself. You can't say it is woo/nonsense until you define what it is. If you define it as woo/nonsense, then by definition, it is woo.

If enough people agree it is woo, as defined by them, then it has to be woo. By definition.
Click to expand...


Actually, we can only say it is woo based on how the supporters of Plasma Cosmology choose to define it, so it is them, not us who first have to define it. If they can not define it as a set of self consistent theories that are consistent with each other, then it is by the lack of that definition what we must call it woo (as Reality Check points out).
 
If you choose to call something "woo", or as Randi would say, "woo woo", it is up to you to define what you mean by woo.

Then, by your definition, it is, for your purposes, considered woo.
 
robinson said:
If you choose to call something "woo", or as Randi would say, "woo woo", it is up to you to define what you mean by woo.

Then, by your definition, it is, for your purposes, considered woo.
Click to expand...


Not at all, certainly you can create your own definition for any word and “Then, by your definition, it is, for your purposes, considered…” that word. But it does not have to be your definition, as the definitions of most words are not yours alone. You can simply use someone else’s or, better still, a generally accepted definition (or use) as you would normally do. Then by that general definition and for general purposes it is considered woo.


http://skepdic.com/woowoo.html
woo-woo
Woo-woo (or just plain woo) refers to ideas considered irrational or based on extremely flimsy evidence or that appeal to mysterious occult forces or powers.
Click to expand...

http://www.doubletongued.org/index.php/dictionary/woo_woo/

woo-woo
adj. concerned with emotions, mysticism, or spiritualism; other than rational or scientific; mysterious; new agey. Also n., a person who has mystical or new age beliefs. Subjects: English

Citations: 1986 Carol M. Ostrom Seattle Times (Wash.) (June 20) “In The Spirit—New Age Adherents Follow A Personal Path” p. E1: Of course, not everyone who thinks that science doesn’t tell all would think it’s reasonable to believe, as Gibson does, that one can program crystals with thought energy. But Gibson says there is ample evidence—both scientific and subjective—that crystals can help in healing and transformation. “You can say it’s woo-woo,” she says with a laugh. “But it works. I go with what works.” 1990 [Annie Szvetecz] Usenet: ran.ragforum (May 28) “thoughts on the bombing”: My thoughts on the this past weekend…(emotional but not too woo woo). There is no logic to the outrage, the helplessness, the constant frustration, and the relentless struggle that we as activists feel on an ongoing basis and for this particular event in our lives. 1992 Howie Movshovitz Denver Post (Colo.) (May 29) “Muddled ‘Poison Ivy’ implies more than it delivers” p. 6F: The movie jumbles Cooper’s occasional poor insights with something like a bad book on adolescent psychology, a worse self-help book and a thoroughly unoriginal horror story. You can see the movie reaching for importance and a kind of woo-woo seriousness. 1995 Sean Mitchell Los Angeles Times (Dec. 31) “Following Her Instincts” p. 10: I didn’t give a good audition either. I’ve always felt that {the late} Jean Rosenthal, who was the real Ginger, helped me get the part. That sounds kind of woo-woo, but we’re in L.A., so what the hell. 1996 [Laura Marple] Usenet: bit.listserv.dorothyl (Mar. 22) “Theater/Blanche/Starving/Mr. Moto”: Some of the spirituality stuff was a bit “woo woo la la” for my tastes, but not so much so that it was a problem. 1999 Lee Caroll, Jan Tober Indigo Children (May 1) p. 131: She considers my metaphysical matters rather woo-woo. 2001 Julia McCord Omaha World-Herald (Neb.) (July 22) “Charity Event Rubs Donors the Right Way” p. 5B: When a friend suggested 10 years ago that Deb Oetken get a massage, she scoffed. “Yeah, right!” she thought to herself. “What kind of woo-woo stuff is that?” 2002 Eric Mortenson Portland Oregonian (Mar. 22) “Gresham’s 2002-03 Budget Draft Balances With Whacks And Freezes” p. C2: Not to get too woo-woo about symbolism, but the boiler broke down at Gresham City Hall on Thursday, providing an appropriately chilly atmosphere as interim City Manager Rob Fussell prepared his budget message. 2003 Jennifer Jordan Usenet: rec.arts.mystery (Apr. 9) “Re: Connolly, _White Road_”: To be a proper woo-woo, you must follow these rules: …Never look for the simplest, most obvious cause of something.…Always favor the conspiracy angle over the boring angle.…Don’t accept mainstream science.…Memorize all the sci-babble terms used in the Star Trek series.…Always claim that the other guy is “closed-minded.” 2004 David Ramsdale Red Hot Tantra (Mar. 1) p. 118: Leave it to his kooky sister to think that sitting around with a bunch of woo-woos was going to get him a date. 2005 [Mimi Smartypants] Mimi Smartypants (Chicago, Illinois) (Apr. 6): I am curious how they handle this particular song, since surely our slightly woo-woo preschool, which decorated paper Easter eggs for “spring” while seemingly making an effort not to actually mention Easter, does not sing the “Teddy Bear, Teddy Bear, say your prayers” line that I learned back in the jump rope days.
Click to expand...
 
robinson said:
http://skepdic.com/woowoo.html


By that definition Plasma Cosmology isn't woo.

See? It depends on how you define something.
Click to expand...


Well I certainly see how you prefer to have things depend on how you choose to define them. “By that definition Plasma Cosmology isn't woo” is a conclusion not a definition. Although you may agree with the above definition of woo, you have not defined Plasma Cosmology as far as I can recall. As the definitions that have been given for Plasma Cosmology and woo are neither mine, nor yours the conclusion that the definition of Plasma Cosmology conforms or does not conform to the definition woo is independent of how you or I might define those things. That people can draw different conclusions from the same definitions, clearly makes that difference in the conclusion independent of definitions used.
 
In both cases, the definition of woo (I prefer woowoo) and Plasma Cosmology are done by others. If deciding who gets to define what is woowoo and what is PC is the issue, there is no way to settle the matter.

It becomes up to each person.
 
robinson said:
In both cases, the definition of woo (I prefer woowoo) and Plasma Cosmology are done by others. If deciding who gets to define what is woowoo and what is PC is the issue, there is no way to settle the matter.

It becomes up to each person.
Click to expand...


But that is not the issue, even though that issue can be easily be settled by finding definitions the parties concerned agree upon. The issue is whether the definition of Plasma Cosmology as presented on this thread by its supporters conforms to the general definition of woo, which would be a conclusion not a definition. That you feel this is a personal issue of who gets to decide definitions and not an issue of a conclusion drawn from the definition provided by those PC supporters, only leads to the conclusion that you are simply not interested in addressing the issue of that conclusion.
 
Again, your definition, your decision to decide.

When science is a matter of consensus, (like deciding Pluto is no longer a planet), then what something is, is up to the person defining the words.
 
robinson said:
In regards to this topic, asking the question doesn't mean the question is valid.

Is Plasma Cosmology considered a non-standard cosmology? According to Scientific consensus it is.
Click to expand...
You are right about Plasma Cosmology. But it turns out that this is not what the forum is discussing.

Just to remind everyone that the question that this thread was started with has been answered:
The "plasma cosmology" supported by Zeuzzz, BeAChooser and others is definitely woo.

The scientific theory of Plasma Cosmology is that of Hannes Olof Gösta Alfvén. This was expanded upon by Anthony Peratt, especially in the area of galaxy formation.

But the "plasma cosmology" that has emerged in this thread is not Plasma Cosmology and is not a scientific theory. Since it's proponents claim that it is a scientific theory that makes it woo.

The definition of "plasma cosmology"is that it is a collection of scientific theories (not one consistent scientific theory) with a common thread. This thread seems to be that the theory either emphasizes the contribution of plasma in the universe or is a steady state cosmological theory.

This collection allows the addition of any new theory that matches the criteria regardless of consistency with existing theories in the collection. Thus the collection allows:
  • Multiple inconsistent theories on cosmological redshift.
  • Multiple inconsistent theories on the cosmic microwave background.
  • Multiple inconsistent theories on the structure of the universe.
  • Multiple inconsistent theories on stellar formation.
The PC collection includes:
  • 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
  • Peratt's explanation of the CMB, 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).
  • Baryonic Cold Skeleton of the Universe (Kukushkin, Alexander B. and Rantsev-Kartinov, Valentin A.)
  • Also the original Plasma Cosmology of Hannes Alfvén?
  • All standard plasma theories.
  • Electric Universe (see the latest posts).
  • Iron Sun?
  • etc. (I will add to this list as this thread progresses since no one really knows what theories are included)
There seems to be an emphasis on the extension of laboratory experiments in theory to large sizes via plasma scaling (ignoring the problems with this - see the Astrophysical application section). The observational evidence for this scaling has some gaps in it.


pc completely forgets about the laboratory experiments on gravity that can be scaled in theory without any problems to cosmic scales. The observational evidence for this scaling has some gaps in it.
 
robinson said:
Again, your definition, your decision to decide.
Click to expand...


Agian, not my definitions.

robinson said:
When science is a matter of consensus, (like deciding Pluto is no longer a planet), then what something is, is up to the person defining the words.
Click to expand...


What a consensus of one? Which is it “science is a matter of consensus” or “what something is, is up to the person defining the words”? You have been spewing crap for so long you no longer notice the stench.
 
Robinson,
The point I have been trying to get across to you is conclusions from data. Which is the bases of science as well as classifications (as in the case of Pluto) and even definitions, as I tried to demonstrate in my post, http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=3860727#post3860727, where I included the references (or data) that the conclusion of that definition was based on.


Conclusions can certainly be personal as, hopefully, you draw them from the data for yourself, but they do not have to be. Definitions can be as well but likewise do not have to be. As was the purpose of this thread, to allow PC supports to define for everyone else what are the theories and data of PC. Whatever conclusions anyone might draw from the data of that or any other definition or classification (not of their own) are of course still their own conclusions, but in this case the defining aspects of PC and woo, are not mine, but my conclusion certainly is, as it seems that of others as well.
 
Reality Check said:
You are right about Plasma Cosmology. But it turns out that this is not what the forum is discussing.

Just to remind everyone that the question that this thread was started with has been answered:
The "plasma cosmology" supported by Zeuzzz, BeAChooser and others is definitely woo.

The scientific theory of Plasma Cosmology is that of Hannes Olof Gösta Alfvén. This was expanded upon by Anthony Peratt, especially in the area of galaxy formation.

But the "plasma cosmology" that has emerged in this thread is not Plasma Cosmology and is not a scientific theory. Since it's proponents claim that it is a scientific theory that makes it woo.

The definition of "plasma cosmology" is that it is a collection of scientific theories (not one consistent scientific theory) with a common thread. This thread seems to be that the theory either emphasizes the contribution of plasma in the universe or is a steady state cosmological theory.
Click to expand...


Yes, Plasma cosmology is a collection of scientific theories with a common thread, just like any other cosmology. In any cosmology publications are written with a common thread, ie, LCDM papers are written based on this model, not all become accepted, but can still be counted as contributions to the cosmology, as they may gain popularity in the future, or turn out correct. If we had a long thread discussing LCDM, no doubt things like Self-Interacting Dark Matter (SIDM) would be discussed, Lineweaver's work, any author that writes papers for the LCDM framework, even though much of it would not be by most considered part of the LCDM cosmology.

This collection allows the addition of any new theory that matches the criteria regardless of consistency with existing theories in the collection.
Click to expand...

[/LIST]The PC collection includes:
  • 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.
  • Lerner's explanation of the CMB
  • 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).
  • Baryonic Cold Skeleton of the Universe (Kukushkin, Alexander B. and Rantsev-Kartinov, Valentin A.)
  • Also the original Plasma Cosmology of Hannes Alfvén?
  • All standard plasma theories.
  • etc. (I will add to this list as this thread progresses since no one really knows what theories are included)
Click to expand...


I could work with this list, but whats the point? Should we create a long list of all the various theories developed in the framework of other cosmologies? even the inconsistent ones? And you can remove, [*]Electric Universe + [*]Iron Sun?, never seen either mentioned in a PC journal, and I don’t know what you mean by electric universe. And by the way, that’s probably the best way to define what is PC material, if it’s published in a PC journal.

And various other journals would have publications that meet the criteria for acceptance within PC, which I outlined before.

And you can add one more to your list for now, since you seem content on copying this list, The Van Allen Hypothesis, The Origin of the Magnetic Fields of the Planets and Stars

And put some links next to the others, so people can actually see what you are referring to. You could end up assembling quite a handy list here. I'll make it easy for you, I’ll copy some links from another list that are about the few PC models you listed;


•Tired-light explanation of cosmological redshifts.

I would remove this, its a bit vague. The mechanisms are much more specific and well established laboratory effects; simply labelling any alternative explanation as ‘tired light’ doesn’t do them justice at all.
Lets try these, which are the two alternative explanations for discordant redshifts that have the most experimental verification and subsequent work conducted;


• The Wolf Effect


• Coherent Raman Effect on incoherent light (CREIL)


• Peratt's plasma model of galaxy formation.


• Lerner's model of element formation in galaxies.


• Intrinsic redshifts from the ejection of quasars from bright galaxies.


• Lerner's explanation of the CMB


• 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).


• Baryonic Cold Skeleton of the Universe (Kukushkin, Alexander B. and Rantsev-Kartinov, Valentin A.)

(Not published in a PC journal, but certainly seem consistent with the main concepts in PC material.)


• Also the original Plasma Cosmology of Hannes Alfvén?

No. I should probably clarify that Alfvens cosmology involving ambiplasma, matter symmetry, etc, have been shown to to be incorrect. Wikipedia has information about this old version of PC here; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_cosmology and the revised version of plasma cosmology, which holds all the core principles of the original plasma cosmology of alfven but not the specific theories he used, is what plasma cosmology is considered today. Plasma cosmology is the study of the plasma universe (not the pseudo plasma universe :D) Some of the main models behind the revised version of plasma cosmology can be seen at this wikipedia page; http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Plasma_cosmology&oldid=88919194#cite_note-41


• All standard plasma theories.

No. Only theories that have an actualistic approach, none that use pseudo plasma, none that require a big bang (or things closely related to the finite timescale of the Big Bang), none that require new physics, none that require new matter or energy to be invoked to explain observations, and none that require loads of free parameters. The vast majority of people who model plasma model it is pseudo plasma, which has mathematical elegance and can be fitted into models easily, but are a far way away from the true properties of plasmas. Such plasma rarely make any sucessful predictions. This is the whole point of plasma cosmology, applying the real properties of plasma to space.



Take a look at this article that has been published recently on a website by NASA for example, which is written in a definitive PC style; http://history.nasa.gov/SP-345/ch15.htm


In the preceding two parts of this monograph we have treated the most recent phases in the formation of planets and satellites. In doing so, we have adopted the actualistic principle. Starting from the present properties of planets and satellites, we have traced their history back in time in an attempt to find how these bodies have accreted from smaller bodies [..........]

15.3.1. General Considerations

As a result of new factual knowledge, the "first approach" has been proven to describe only the properties of the "pseudo-plasma," a fictitious medium, which has rather little to do with real plasma. Hence we must now take a "second approach" [….]

15.3.2. Pseudo-Plasma Versus Real Plasma

The basic difference between the first and second approaches is to some extent illustrated by the terms ionized gas and plasma which, although....
realelectrodynamicsom5.jpg


....in reality synonymous, convey different general notions. The first term gives an impression of a medium that is basically similar to a gas, especially the atmospheric gas we are most familiar with. In contrast to this, a plasma, particularly a fully ionized magnetized plasma, is a medium with basically different properties: Typically it is strongly inhomogeneous and consists of a network of filaments produced by line currents and surfaces of discontinuity. These are sometimes due to current sheaths and, sometimes, to electrostatic double layers. [……….]
In the solar atmosphere the border between the photosphere and the chromosphere marks a transition similar to that between the two auroral states. The photosphere can be approximated as a homogeneous medium, at least to some extent, but in the chromosphere and upwards we have a typical plasma, a basic property of which is inhomogeneity manifest in filaments, streamers, and flares. To describe the chromosphere by means of homogeneous models and according to the pseudo-plasma theories is a, fundamental mistake that has often led to conclusions and conjectures that are totally divorced from reality.
Click to expand...



Well, make those changes and your list is slowly getting closer to reality. I'll add plenty more when I've the time.
 
Last edited:
Zeuzzz said:
Yes, Plasma cosmology is a collection of scientific theories with a common thread, just like any other cosmology. In any cosmology publications are written with a common thread, ie, LCDM papers are written based on this model, not all become accepted, but can still be counted as contributions to the cosmology, as they may gain popularity in the future, or turn out correct. If we had a long thread discussing LCDM, no doubt things like Self-Interacting Dark Matter (SIDM) would be discussed, Lineweaver's work, any author that writes papers for the LCDM framework, even though much of it would not be by most considered part of the LCDM cosmology.
...snipped link fest....
Click to expand...
LCDM only includes GR and dark matter.
A paper is not a theory so they would not be included in the list.

They are not mutually inconsistent theories like the many, many, many (and many more to come) theories in your "plasma cosmology".
 
Reality Check said:
LCDM only includes GR and dark matter.
A paper is not a theory so they would not be included in the list.

They are not mutually inconsistent theories like the many, many, many (and many more to come) theories in your "plasma cosmology".
Click to expand...


I could list many ideas from various people who have propsoed models in LCDM that are inconsistant. The core basic principles and assumptions in LCDM are always the same, but most of the actual specific details and models will be disputed by various people considered experts in the field, depending on who's model to explain the observations you are talking about.

And PC has core basic principles and assumptions too. They are just far more realistic assumptions than LCDM is based on.

I'll try to outline the differences in main concepts and assumptions, and you can decide which are most likely;

LCDM:

> The universe has an origin in time, an intial event of creation.
> Before this there was nothing. Which later exploded to form the Big Bang.
> Relies on Einstein's General Relativity.
> Relativity yields an infinite density and temperature at a finite time in the past (a singularity)
> 90% of the matter in the universe is dark matter that does not emit light or interact with normal baryonic matter (to explain not sufficient visible matter in the universe to account for the apparent strength of gravitational forces within and between galaxies)


PC viewpoint on these assumptions:

> The universe does not have a definitive origin in time, but one is not entirely ruled out. An actualistic approach is taken (starting now and working backwards in time to increasingly ancient states), instead of the prophetic approach that started the Big Bang theory (starting with an event and trying to prove this event with recent observations)
> As we do not see matter and energy being created out of nothing today anywhere in the universe, this didn't happen in the past.
> Relativity is used in various models in PC where it is needed to be accounted for and has experimental verification, but can not be used to prove the Big Bang as Hawkings model (that implies a gravitational singularity in our universe if the cosmological constant is zero) rests on the assumption that Thomson scattering is the most efficient process for thermalization, which is not true when the plasma nature of the universe is taken into consideration (In highly magnetized plasmas other processes such as inverse synchrotron absorption can be far more efficient, with such efficient absorption and re-emission, the amount of plasma needed to thermalize the cosmic microwave background can be orders of magnitude less than that needed to produce a singularity.)
> PC Does not show an infinite density and temperature at a finite time in the past (a singularity), as we have no reason to think that anything can obtain 'infinite density and temperature', and no-one has ever observed a singularity in nature.
> Most of the universe is made up of the same stuff we have empirical evidence for on Earth, ie, baryonic, leptonic, etc. Plasma effects can account for the rotation and structures of galaxies without the need to invoke DM to account for observations.


Which of these lists of assumptions sounds more woo? The first ones seem way too woo for my liking for what is considered a tenable scientific theory. The PC list just makes logical sense, the Big Bang list does not.
 
Last edited:
Zeuzzz said:
I could list many ideas from various people who have propsoed models in LCDM that are inconsistant. The core basic principles and assumptions in LCDM are always the same, but most of the actual specific details and models will be disputed by various people considered experts in the field, depending on who's model to explain the observations you are talking about.

And PC has core basic principles and assumptions too. They are just far more realistic assumptions than LCDM is based on.

I'll try to outline the differences in main concepts and assumptions, and you can decide which are most likely;

LCDM:

> The universe has an origin in time, an intial event of creation.
> Before this there was nothing. Which later exploded to form the Big Bang.
> Relies on Einstein's General Relativity.
> Relativity yields an infinite density and temperature at a finite time in the past (a singularity)
> 90% of the matter in the universe is dark matter that does not emit light or interact with normal baryonic matter (to explain not sufficient visible matter in the universe to account for the apparent strength of gravitational forces within and between galaxies)


PC viewpoint on these assumptions:

> The universe does not have a definitive origin in time, but one is not entirely ruled out. An actualistic approach is taken (starting now and working backwards in time to increasingly ancient states), instead of the prophetic approach that started the Big Bang theory (starting with an event and trying to prove this event with recent observations)
> As we do not see matter and energy being created out of nothing today anywhere in the universe, this didn't happen in the past.
> Relativity is used in various models in PC where it is needed to be accounted for and has experimental verification, but can not be used to prove the Big Bang as Hawkings model (that implies a gravitational singularity in our universe if the cosmological constant is zero) rests on the assumption that Thomson scattering is the most efficient process for thermalization, which is not true when the plasma nature of the universe is taken into consideration (In highly magnetized plasmas other processes such as inverse synchrotron absorption can be far more efficient, with such efficient absorption and re-emission, the amount of plasma needed to thermalize the cosmic microwave background can be orders of magnitude less than that needed to produce a singularity.)
> PC Does not show an infinite density and temperature at a finite time in the past (a singularity), as we have no reason to think that anything can obtain 'infinite density and temperature', and no-one has ever observed a singularity in nature.
> Most of the universe is made up of the same stuff we have empirical evidence for on Earth, ie, baryonic, leptonic, etc. Plasma effects can account for the rotation and structures of galaxies without the need to invoke DM to account for observations.


Which of these lists of assumptions sounds more woo? The first ones seem way too woo for my liking for what is considered a tenable scientific theory. The PC list just makes logical sense, the Big Bang list does not.
Click to expand...
Guess what Zeuzz: In hindsight you are correct.Your "plasma cosmology" is not woo. It is merely a crackpot, nonscientific theory. So to please you have have changed the conclustion of this thread:

Just to remind everyone that the question that this thread was started with has been answered:
The "plasma cosmology" supported by Zeuzzz, BeAChooser and others is definitely a nonscientific, crackpot theory (not woo).

The scientific theory of Plasma Cosmology is that of Hannes Olof Gösta Alfvén. This was expanded upon by Anthony Peratt, especially in the area of galaxy formation.

But the "plasma cosmology" that has emerged in this thread is not Plasma Cosmology and is not a scientific theory. Since it's proponents claim that it is a scientific theory that makes it crackpottery.

The definition of "plasma cosmology"is that it is a collection of scientific theories (not one consistent scientific theory) with a common thread. This thread seems to be that the theory either emphasizes the contribution of plasma in the universe or is a steady state cosmological theory.


This collection allows the addition of any new theory that matches the criteria regardless of consistency with existing theories in the collection. Thus the collection allows:
  • Multiple inconsistent theories on cosmological redshift.
  • Multiple inconsistent theories on the cosmic microwave background.
  • Multiple inconsistent theories on the structure of the universe.
  • Multiple inconsistent theories on stellar formation.
  • Multiple inconsistent theories on anything else that is contained in "plasma cosmology"
The PC collection includes:
  • Peratt's plasma model of galaxy formation.
  • Lerner's model of element formation in galaxies.
  • Gallo et al. calculations of Galactic Rotation Described with Bulge+Disk Gravitational Models.
  • 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
  • Peratt's explanation of the CMB, 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).
  • Baryonic Cold Skeleton of the Universe (Kukushkin, Alexander B. and Rantsev-Kartinov, Valentin A.)
  • Also the original Plasma Cosmology of Hannes Alfvén?
  • All standard plasma theories.
  • Electric Universe (see the latest posts).
  • Iron Sun?
  • etc. (I will add to this list as this thread progresses since no one really knows what theories are included)
There seems to be an emphasis on the extension of laboratory experiments in theory to large sizes via plasma scaling (ignoring the problems with this - see the Astrophysical application section). The observational evidence for this scaling has some gaps in it.


pc completely forgets about the laboratory experiments on gravity that can be scaled in theory without any problems to cosmic scales. The observational evidence for this scaling has some gaps in it.
 
Zeuzzz said:
LCDM:

> The universe has an origin in time, an intial event of creation.
> Before this there was nothing. Which later exploded to form the Big Bang.
Click to expand...

Well, no. The point is that we cannot know what existed prior to the big bang, not that nothing existed at all.

> Relies on Einstein's General Relativity.
> Relativity yields an infinite density and temperature at a finite time in the past (a singularity)
Click to expand...

Correct. But rather at odds with how you characterize it in the following bit:

PC viewpoint on these assumptions:

> The universe does not have a definitive origin in time, but one is not entirely ruled out. An actualistic approach is taken (starting now and working backwards in time to increasingly ancient states), instead of the prophetic approach that started the Big Bang theory (starting with an event and trying to prove this event with recent observations)
Click to expand...

The big bang theory is precisely the result of working backwards from observation (namely redshift expansion data). Now, I know you've objected to the accuracy of distance/velocity/redshift relationships, but even if they're wrong, the big bang is still a model which was arrived at by working backwards from the current state. Which makes this characterization a lie, regardless of the accuracy of the model itself. It's this sort of dishonesty which makes people not take you seriously.

> As we do not see matter and energy being created out of nothing today anywhere in the universe, this didn't happen in the past.
Click to expand...

So how do you square this with the idea that the universe may not have a definite beginning? If you can't add energy, why are we not at thermodynamic equilibrium? Or do you think it's fine to violate the 2nd law, as long as you don't violate the 1st?

> Relativity is used in various models in PC where it is needed to be accounted for
Click to expand...

In other words, you ignore it if it doesn't give the answers you want.

> Most of the universe is made up of the same stuff we have empirical evidence for on Earth, ie, baryonic, leptonic, etc. Plasma effects can account for the rotation and structures of galaxies without the need to invoke DM to account for observations.
Click to expand...

We've been through the numbers on this already: rotation rates cannot be accounted for via plasma models. You were off by something like 20 orders of magnitude in the required magnetic field.
 
Reality Check said:
Guess what Zeuzz: In hindsight you are correct.Your "plasma cosmology" is not woo. It is merely a crackpot, nonscientific theory. So to please you have have changed the conclustion of this thread:

Just to remind everyone that the question that this thread was started with has been answered:
The "plasma cosmology" supported by Zeuzzz, BeAChooser and others is definitely a nonscientific, crackpot theory (not woo).

The scientific theory of Plasma Cosmology is that of Hannes Olof Gösta Alfvén. This was expanded upon by Anthony Peratt, especially in the area of galaxy formation.

But the "plasma cosmology" that has emerged in this thread is not Plasma Cosmology and is not a scientific theory. Since it's proponents claim that it is a scientific theory that makes it crackpottery.

The definition of "plasma cosmology"is that it is a collection of scientific theories (not one consistent scientific theory) with a common thread. This thread seems to be that the theory either emphasizes the contribution of plasma in the universe or is a steady state cosmological theory.


This collection allows the addition of any new theory that matches the criteria regardless of consistency with existing theories in the collection. Thus the collection allows:
  • Multiple inconsistent theories on cosmological redshift.
  • Multiple inconsistent theories on the cosmic microwave background.
  • Multiple inconsistent theories on the structure of the universe.
  • Multiple inconsistent theories on stellar formation.
  • Multiple inconsistent theories on anything else that is contained in "plasma cosmology"
The PC collection includes:
  • Peratt's plasma model of galaxy formation.
  • Lerner's model of element formation in galaxies.
  • Gallo et al. calculations of Galactic Rotation Described with Bulge+Disk Gravitational Models.
  • 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
  • Peratt's explanation of the CMB, 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).
  • Baryonic Cold Skeleton of the Universe (Kukushkin, Alexander B. and Rantsev-Kartinov, Valentin A.)
  • Also the original Plasma Cosmology of Hannes Alfvén?
  • All standard plasma theories.
  • Electric Universe (see the latest posts).
  • Iron Sun?
  • etc. (I will add to this list as this thread progresses since no one really knows what theories are included)
There seems to be an emphasis on the extension of laboratory experiments in theory to large sizes via plasma scaling (ignoring the problems with this - see the Astrophysical application section). The observational evidence for this scaling has some gaps in it.


pc completely forgets about the laboratory experiments on gravity that can be scaled in theory without any problems to cosmic scales. The observational evidence for this scaling has some gaps in it.
Click to expand...


So your going to ignore the many points I made in this post above (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3877199&postcount=860) that directly tells you what the problems with this list are, and instead simply change your conclusion from PC is woo to PC is now crackpot? Dare I ask you what reasoning you have for this conclusion? I clearly outlined which ones are PC and not, what the core concepts behind PC are, how a publication falls into the scope of PC by meeting the specific criteria (just like for publications written within the framework for other cosmologies), The difference between Alfvens old cosmology and the revised modern plasma cosmology, what the actualistic approach to cosmology is compared to the other approaches. You going to update your list, with some links (that I provided) or was it another Dark post?
 
I have corrected your list of LCDM concepts:


LCDM:
  1. The universe has an origin in time, an initial event of creation.
  2. We cannot say what was before this origin (yet). It could be nothing.
  3. Einstein's General Relativity has a solution that describes the Big Bang. This solution yields an infinite density and temperature at a finite time in the past (a singularity). This suggests that GR is an approximation to another theory which does not produce singularities (they also occur in black hole solutions). Singularities may actually exist but it is just intuitively nice if they did not.
  4. 22% of the matter in the universe is dark matter that does not emit light or interact strongly with normal baryonic matter.
Your list of plasma cosmology concepts:
  1. The universe does not have a definitive origin in time, but one is not entirely ruled out. An actualistic approach is taken (starting now and working backwards in time to increasingly ancient states), instead of the prophetic approach that started the Big Bang theory (starting with an event and trying to prove this event with recent observations)
  2. As we do not see matter and energy being created out of nothing today anywhere in the universe, this didn't happen in the past.
  3. Relativity is used in various models in PC where it is needed to be accounted for and has experimental verification, but can not be used to prove the Big Bang as Hawkings model (that implies a gravitational singularity in our universe if the cosmological constant is zero) rests on the assumption that Thomson scattering is the most efficient process for thermalization, which is not true when the plasma nature of the universe is taken into consideration (In highly magnetized plasmas other processes such as inverse synchrotron absorption can be far more efficient, with such efficient absorption and re-emission, the amount of plasma needed to thermalize the cosmic microwave background can be orders of magnitude less than that needed to produce a singularity.)
  4. PC Does not show an infinite density and temperature at a finite time in the past (a singularity), as we have no reason to think that anything can obtain 'infinite density and temperature', and no-one has ever observed a singularity in nature.
  5. Most of the universe is made up of the same stuff we have empirical evidence for on Earth, ie, baryonic, leptonic, etc. Plasma effects can account for the rotation and structures of galaxies without the need to invoke DM to account for observations.
pc concept 1 is basically that an origin cannot be ruled out. This is strange since one of the criteria for selecting pc theories is that the theory be steady state. But maybe you have changed your mind again?
Historically the FLRW solution of GR did come first. This means that observations later confirmed it (but did not "prove" it).

pc concept 2 has can be removed since LCDM does not assume that there was nothing before the big bang.

pc concept 3: Where does Hawkings model come in the Big Bang model? BB does not use Hawkings model (if it is the one that I think that you are talking about which is the one about the state of the universe before the BB). Or is there another model?
Maybe the BB state of matter before the radiation decoupled from matter was a plasma (I am not sure but it seems likely). But what makes you think that it was "highly magnetized plasmas"? Can you give a few citations that state that the BB state of matter at that time was a highly magnetized plasma?

pc concept 4: To be more exact some of the many theories included in pc do not have a singularity. Other theories may show a singularity (nobody knows since there is no complete list). This is yes another possible inconsistency in the many theories included in "plasma cosmology"

pc concept 5: Plasma effects cannot account for rotation and structures of galaxies without the need to invoke DM to account for observations.
Dark matter exists. The evidence for it is conclusive (galactic velocity dispersion curves are just 1 piece of evidence) and we have even directly observed it.

Other evidence:
  • The motion of galaxies in galactic clusters is explained by dark matter.
  • Weak gravitational lensing observations show that galactic clusters have matter that is not visible.
  • The Dwarf Spheroidal Galaxies in the Local Group have measured masses that are many times their visible masses.
  • The details of the CMB are explained by the LCDM model.
  • LCDM computer simulations match the large scale structure of the universe. However there may be a "plasma cosmology" computer simulation out there somewhere that gives as good a match.
P.S.
I just came across an interesting effect that is evidence for time in the universe when galaxies did not exist: the Lyman-alpha forest.
This allows us to measure the the frequency and density of clouds containing neutral hydrogen. It turns out that as you go back in time (longer distances) the amount of neutral hydrogen increases. This means that the amount of ionized hydrogen decreases. What ionizes neutral hydrogen? The light from galaxies ionizes neutral hydrogen. If galaxies have always been there then there would be no variation in the amount of neutral hydrogen. In fact there is a case for there being no neutral hydrogen in the universe.
Thus plasma cosmology needs to throw out all theories that allow galaxies to exist for ever (i.e. steady state theories).
 
Zeuzzz said:
So your going to ignore the many points I made in this post above (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3877199&postcount=860) that directly tells you what the problems with this list are, and instead simply change your conclusion from PC is woo to PC is now crackpot? Dare I ask you what reasoning you have for this conclusion? I clearly outlined which ones are PC and not, what the core concepts behind PC are, how a publication falls into the scope of PC by meeting the specific criteria (just like for publications written within the framework for other cosmologies), The difference between Alfvens old cosmology and the revised modern plasma cosmology, what the actualistic approach to cosmology is compared to the other approaches. You going to update your list, with some links (that I provided) or was it another Dark post?
Click to expand...
Hi Zeuzzz, I ignored them because they are the same old collection of inconsistant theories that make "plasma cosmology" into a crackpot science.
You are merely confirming to everyone that "plasma cosmology" is a crackpot theory. Feel free to continue making "plasma cosmology" into an even more crackpot theory.
 
Reality Check said:
I have corrected your list of LCDM concepts:


LCDM:
  1. The universe has an origin in time, an initial event of creation.
  2. We cannot say what was before this origin (yet). It could be nothing.
  3. Einstein's General Relativity has a solution that describes the Big Bang. This solution yields an infinite density and temperature at a finite time in the past (a singularity). This suggests that GR is an approximation to another theory which does not produce singularities (they also occur in black hole solutions). Singularities may actually exist but it is just intuitively nice if they did not.
  4. 22% of the matter in the universe is dark matter that does not emit light or interact strongly with normal baryonic matter.
Your list of plasma cosmology concepts:
  1. The universe does not have a definitive origin in time, but one is not entirely ruled out. An actualistic approach is taken (starting now and working backwards in time to increasingly ancient states), instead of the prophetic approach that started the Big Bang theory (starting with an event and trying to prove this event with recent observations)
  2. As we do not see matter and energy being created out of nothing today anywhere in the universe, this didn't happen in the past.
  3. Relativity is used in various models in PC where it is needed to be accounted for and has experimental verification, but can not be used to prove the Big Bang as Hawkings model (that implies a gravitational singularity in our universe if the cosmological constant is zero) rests on the assumption that Thomson scattering is the most efficient process for thermalization, which is not true when the plasma nature of the universe is taken into consideration (In highly magnetized plasmas other processes such as inverse synchrotron absorption can be far more efficient, with such efficient absorption and re-emission, the amount of plasma needed to thermalize the cosmic microwave background can be orders of magnitude less than that needed to produce a singularity.)
  4. PC Does not show an infinite density and temperature at a finite time in the past (a singularity), as we have no reason to think that anything can obtain 'infinite density and temperature', and no-one has ever observed a singularity in nature.
  5. Most of the universe is made up of the same stuff we have empirical evidence for on Earth, ie, baryonic, leptonic, etc. Plasma effects can account for the rotation and structures of galaxies without the need to invoke DM to account for observations.
pc concept 1 is basically that an origin cannot be ruled out. This is strange since one of the criteria for selecting pc theories is that the theory be steady state. But maybe you have changed your mind again?
Historically the FLRW solution of GR did come first. This means that observations later confirmed it (but did not "prove" it).

pc concept 2 has can be removed since LCDM does not assume that there was nothing before the big bang.

pc concept 3: Where does Hawkings model come in the Big Bang model? BB does not use Hawkings model (if it is the one that I think that you are talking about which is the one about the state of the universe before the BB). Or is there another model?
Maybe the BB state of matter before the radiation decoupled from matter was a plasma (I am not sure but it seems likely). But what makes you think that it was "highly magnetized plasmas"? Can you give a few citations that state that the BB state of matter at that time was a highly magnetized plasma?

pc concept 4: To be more exact some of the many theories included in pc do not have a singularity. Other theories may show a singularity (nobody knows since there is no complete list). This is yes another possible inconsistency in the many theories included in "plasma cosmology"

pc concept 5: Plasma effects cannot account for rotation and structures of galaxies without the need to invoke DM to account for observations.
Dark matter exists. The evidence for it is conclusive (galactic velocity dispersion curves are just 1 piece of evidence) and we have even directly observed it.

Other evidence:
  • The motion of galaxies in galactic clusters is explained by dark matter.
  • Weak gravitational lensing observations show that galactic clusters have matter that is not visible.
  • The Dwarf Spheroidal Galaxies in the Local Group have measured masses that are many times their visible masses.
  • The details of the CMB are explained by the LCDM model.
  • LCDM computer simulations match the large scale structure of the universe. However there may be a "plasma cosmology" computer simulation out there somewhere that gives as good a match.
P.S.
I just came across an interesting effect that is evidence for time in the universe when galaxies did not exist: the Lyman-alpha forest.
This allows us to measure the the frequency and density of clouds containing neutral hydrogen. It turns out that as you go back in time (longer distances) the amount of neutral hydrogen increases. This means that the amount of ionized hydrogen decreases. What ionizes neutral hydrogen? The light from galaxies ionizes neutral hydrogen. If galaxies have always been there then there would be no variation in the amount of neutral hydrogen. In fact there is a case for there being no neutral hydrogen in the universe.
Thus plasma cosmology needs to throw out all theories that allow galaxies to exist for ever (i.e. steady state theories).
Click to expand...

From the outset, the notion that Plasma Cosmology (PC) is an entire theory is fatally flawed. Yet your critique of it is subsequently flawed--for the very same reasons!

As a comparative naïf, I admit that I do not understand all of the maths--particularly since the way they are represented has changed so much since I was last educated (yet I am doing my best to get up to speed)

Yet I do recognize political foolishness when I see it. And "dark matter" looks like so much deus ex machina, when there is readily available matter in the plasma state to explain it. And a "Big Bang" sounds just too much like a justification for insemination from "The Big Guy From Above".

Rather than claiming that this force or that always trumps, why not examine the context? That would surely be more scientific.

ETA
I have stricken that about which I was mistaken; the subsequent post proves me wrong. Sorry.
 
Last edited:
Just to remind everyone that the question that this thread was started with has been answered:
The "plasma cosmology" supported by Zeuzzz, BeAChooser and others is definitely a nonscientific, crackpot theory (not woo).

The scientific theory of Plasma Cosmology is that of Hannes Olof Gösta Alfvén. This was expanded upon by Anthony Peratt, especially in the area of galaxy formation.

But the "plasma cosmology" that has emerged in this thread is not Plasma Cosmology and is not a scientific theory. Since it's proponents claim that it is a scientific theory that makes it crackpottery.

The definition of "plasma cosmology"is that it is a collection of scientific theories (not one consistent scientific theory) with a common thread. This thread seems to be that the theory either emphasizes the contribution of plasma in the universe or is a steady state cosmological theory.


This collection allows the addition of any new theory that matches the criteria regardless of consistency with existing theories in the collection. Thus the collection allows:
  • Multiple inconsistent theories on cosmological redshift.
  • Multiple inconsistent theories on the cosmic microwave background.
  • Multiple inconsistent theories on the structure of the universe.
  • Multiple inconsistent theories on stellar formation.
  • Multiple inconsistent theories on anything else that is contained in "plasma cosmology"
The PC collection includes:
There seems to be an emphasis on the extension of laboratory experiments in theory to large sizes via plasma scaling (ignoring the problems with this - see the Astrophysical application section). The observational evidence for this scaling has some gaps in it.

pc completely forgets about the laboratory experiments on gravity that can be scaled in theory without any problems to cosmic scales. The observational evidence for this scaling has some gaps in it

21 July: More theories and some links added by Zeuzz's request (but not all of the multiple links that he requested). Some of these are just ordinary physics but he is the expert on "plasma cosmology" and so I have added them.
My thanks to Zuezzz for continuing to confirm that plasma cosmology is a collection of inconsistent theories.
 
Zeuzzz said:
Yes, Plasma cosmology is a collection of scientific theories with a common thread, just like any other cosmology. In any cosmology publications are written with a common thread, ie, LCDM papers are written based on this model, not all become accepted, but can still be counted as contributions to the cosmology, as they may gain popularity in the future, or turn out correct. If we had a long thread discussing LCDM, no doubt things like Self-Interacting Dark Matter (SIDM) would be discussed, Lineweaver's work, any author that writes papers for the LCDM framework, even though much of it would not be by most considered part of the LCDM cosmology.
Click to expand...
Just to emphasis the basic premise of plasma cosmology: Plasma cosmology is a collection of scientific theories with a common thread that allows mutally inconsistent theories, unlike any other cosmology.

LCDM is not every theory that is published in a cosmology journal. It is 2 theories: GR + cold dark matter. That is all.
There are alternative theories about gravity (e.g MOND) but none have as much evidence for them as GR.
There are alternative theories about the form of dark matter. These do not affect the LCDM model.

If you want plasma cosmology to become a scientific theory then you have to select a set of consistent theories from your collection.

Zeuzzz said:
I could work with this list, but whats the point? Should we create a long list of all the various theories developed in the framework of other cosmologies? even the inconsistent ones? And you can remove,
[*]Electric Universe +
[*]Iron Sun?, never seen either mentioned in a PC journal, and I don’t know what you mean by electric universe. And by the way, that’s probably the best way to define what is PC material, if it’s published in a PC journal.
Click to expand...
Can you give a list of the journal devoted to plasma cosmology?

Or is this list like your definition of plasma cosmology: anything that publishes anything that looks like your conception of plasma cosmology?
 
Ziggurat said:
Well, no. The point is that we cannot know what existed prior to the big bang, not that nothing existed at all.
Click to expand...


The point is that we cannot know that god existed prior to the Big Bang and created it, not that he didn't exist at all.

Does that act as any more proof that god exists? Me thinks not.

The big bang theory is precisely the result of working backwards from observation (namely redshift expansion data). Now, I know you've objected to the accuracy of distance/velocity/redshift relationships, but even if they're wrong, the big bang is still a model which was arrived at by working backwards from the current state. Which makes this characterization a lie, regardless of the accuracy of the model itself. It's this sort of dishonesty which makes people not take you seriously.
Click to expand...


But its a distance/velocity/redshift relationship that is based on very little. There are so many more possibilites that should be considered.

In other words, you ignore it if it doesn't give the answers you want.
Click to expand...


No, Hawkins assumptions are additional to relativity.

We've been through the numbers on this already: rotation rates cannot be accounted for via plasma models. You were off by something like 20 orders of magnitude in the required magnetic field.
Click to expand...


What calculation did you do? single attraction between two stars?
 
Reality Check said:
Just to emphasis the basic premise of plasma cosmology: Plasma cosmology is a collection of scientific theories with a common thread that allows mutally inconsistent theories, unlike any other cosmology.
Click to expand...


There are very few "mutually inconsistent theories" in there, the two separate explanations for Tired light, and a couple of others. I dont know which one is preffered, but could probably take a guess.

LCDM is not every theory that is published in a cosmology journal. It is 2 theories: GR + cold dark matter. That is all.

There are alternative theories about the form of dark matter. These do not affect the LCDM model.
Click to expand...


Of course they could effect the LCDM model. You cant just generalize a theory down to two principles, you have to show how it can be applied in different situations, and provide evidence for that aswell, and you will find that when you do that you will run into various scientists having different explanations for many observations.

If a paper showed that Dark matter is not needed to explain rotation curves, you certainly do have a problem. Saying that "alternative theories about the form of dark matter [....] do not affect the LCDM model" is stupid. If they are correct then they certainly do.



If you want plasma cosmology to become a scientific theory then you have to select a set of consistent theories from your collection.
Click to expand...


Its that easy is it? I could choose two core ideas with ease. Or we both need to re-define what we think is expected from a cosmological theory. This could be fun, we could get down to some of the core assumptions in modern cosmology.

Can you give a list of the journal devoted to plasma cosmology?
Click to expand...


Yes. This list is excluding the various acadmeic books on plasma cosmology. Astrophysics and Space Science 227, Special issue dedicated to Professor Hannes Alfvén, IEEE Transctions on Plasma Science (including) Journal of Laser & Particle Beams, IEEE Special Issues in Honor of Alfvén, (Vol 14 No 6 (Dec 1986), Vol 17 No 2 (Apr 1989), 2nd Special Issue on Space and Cosmic Plasma, Vol 18 No 1 (Feb 1990) 3rd Special Issue on Space and Cosmic Plasma, The Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Plasma Cosmology, Vol 20 No 6 (Dec 1992) 4th Special Issue on Space and Cosmic Plasma Plasma experiments in the laboratory and in space, Vol 28 No 6 (Dec 2000), 5th Special Issue on Space and Cosmic Plasma (Space Weather), Vol 31 No 6 (Dec 2004) 6th Special Issue on Space and Cosmic Plasma, v33 No 5, Vol 35 No 4 Part 1 (Aug 2007), 7th Special Issue on Space and Cosmic Plasma.

Or is this list like your definition of plasma cosmology: anything that publishes anything that looks like your conception of plasma cosmology?
Click to expand...


No, it makes sense really, anything published in a plasma cosmolgy journal is a plasma cosmolgy paper, or it wouldn't be accepted. No erroneous reconnection, no infinitely conducting plasma, no frozen in field lines, no pseudoplasma, no exclusively homogeneous plasma models, no incomplete magnetic field line diagrams, no mention of magnetic fields without the subsequent currents that produce them, and no hypothetical new physics.
 
Last edited:
Dancing David said:
Hey Zeuzzz, have you answered DRD's questions yet or just here to drop a spam bomb?
Click to expand...


Yes I started answering Nereids questions, but she started to disagree with my answers, which I responded to, and whilst I was talking about that I got accused of not answering the original questions any more. So I answered a couple more, then got another accusation. Its a viscious cycle.

I am getting through them, but theres over fifty, and its much quicker to respond to current comments that keep dragging up old ones. I'm just lazy.
 
Last edited:
Zeuzzz said:
There are very few "mutually inconsistent theories" in there, the two separate explanations for Tired light, and a couple of others. I dont know which one is preffered, but could probably take a guess.

Of course they could effect the LCDM model. You cant just generalize a theory down to two principles, you have to show how it can be applied in different situations, and provide evidence for that aswell, and you will find that when you do that you will run into various scientists having different explanations for many observations.
Click to expand...
The LCDM model is defined as GR + cold dark matter (not "generalised down to"). L = Lambda which is the GR part. CDM = Cold Dark Matter.

Zeuzzz said:
If a paper showed that Dark matter is not needed to explain rotation curves, you certainly do have a problem. Saying that "alternative theories about the form of dark matter [....] do not affect the LCDM model" is stupid. If they are correct then they certainly do.
Click to expand...


Your are correct. If a paper can show that dark matter is not needed to:
  1. explain rotation curves.
  2. explain orbits of galaxies in galactic clusters.
  3. explain the actual observation of dark matter.
  4. explain the excess mass in the dwartf galaxies in our Local group.
then LCDM is invalid. If dark matter is needed to explain any of the observations then LCDM is still vaild. The alternative theories are mostly about the nature of dark matter, e.g. WIMPS vs MACHOs. Some look at dark matter with different properties than the normal dark matter. However the LCDM model is only concerned with cold dark matter.

Zeuzzz said:
Its that easy is it? I could choose two core ideas with ease. Or we both need to re-define what we think is expected from a cosmological theory. This could be fun, we could get down to some of the core assumptions in modern cosmology.
Click to expand...
It would be interesting to see you redefine "plasma cosmology" once again.

Zeuzzz said:
Yes. This list is excluding the various acadmeic books on plasma cosmology. Astrophysics and Space Science 227, Special issue dedicated to Professor Hannes Alfvén, IEEE Transctions on Plasma Science (including) Journal of Laser & Particle Beams, IEEE Special Issues in Honor of Alfvén, (Vol 14 No 6 (Dec 1986), Vol 17 No 2 (Apr 1989), 2nd Special Issue on Space and Cosmic Plasma, Vol 18 No 1 (Feb 1990) 3rd Special Issue on Space and Cosmic Plasma, The Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Plasma Cosmology, Vol 20 No 6 (Dec 1992) 4th Special Issue on Space and Cosmic Plasma Plasma experiments in the laboratory and in space, Vol 28 No 6 (Dec 2000), 5th Special Issue on Space and Cosmic Plasma (Space Weather), Vol 31 No 6 (Dec 2004) 6th Special Issue on Space and Cosmic Plasma, v33 No 5, Vol 35 No 4 Part 1 (Aug 2007), 7th Special Issue on Space and Cosmic Plasma.

No, it makes sense really, anything published in a plasma cosmolgy journal is a plasma cosmolgy paper, or it wouldn't be accepted. No erroneous reconnection, no infinitely conducting plasma, no frozen in field lines, no pseudoplasma, no exclusively homogeneous plasma models, no incomplete magnetic field line diagrams, no mention of magnetic fields without the subsequent currents that produce them, and no hypothetical new physics.
Click to expand...
So you do not mean PC journals. You mean various journals that have issues which concentrate on plasma cosmology.

Can you give an example of an actual plasma cosmology journal, i.e. one that has only published papers on plasma cosmology? My guess is that there is not such journal. At least I cannot find one using Google but you should have a better idea.

You should be careful about the old publications. Astronomy has advanced so much in the last decade that you take care about older publications and their continued validity.

ETA: Some special issues are more peer reviewed than others so you need to check whether they contain new papers or reprints of old papers.
 
Last edited:
Zeuzzz said:
What calculation did you do? single attraction between two stars?
Click to expand...

No. I did the calculation for the acceleration of the sun towards the galactic center. Using values for the galactic magnetic field that I think you linked to, the numbers are off by about 20 orders of magnitude. Not a factor of 20, but of 1020.
 
Zeuzzz said:
Yes. This list is excluding the various acadmeic books on plasma cosmology. Astrophysics and Space Science 227, Special issue dedicated to Professor Hannes Alfvén, IEEE Transctions on Plasma Science (including) Journal of Laser & Particle Beams, IEEE Special Issues in Honor of Alfvén, (Vol 14 No 6 (Dec 1986), Vol 17 No 2 (Apr 1989), 2nd Special Issue on Space and Cosmic Plasma, Vol 18 No 1 (Feb 1990) 3rd Special Issue on Space and Cosmic Plasma, The Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Plasma Cosmology, Vol 20 No 6 (Dec 1992) 4th Special Issue on Space and Cosmic Plasma Plasma experiments in the laboratory and in space, Vol 28 No 6 (Dec 2000), 5th Special Issue on Space and Cosmic Plasma (Space Weather), Vol 31 No 6 (Dec 2004) 6th Special Issue on Space and Cosmic Plasma, v33 No 5, Vol 35 No 4 Part 1 (Aug 2007), 7th Special Issue on Space and Cosmic Plasma.


No, it makes sense really, anything published in a plasma cosmolgy journal is a plasma cosmolgy paper, or it wouldn't be accepted. No erroneous reconnection, no infinitely conducting plasma, no frozen in field lines, no pseudoplasma, no exclusively homogeneous plasma models, no incomplete magnetic field line diagrams, no mention of magnetic fields without the subsequent currents that produce them, and no hypothetical new physics.
Click to expand...

You really need to get up to date with modern day space plasma physcis, my dear Zeuzzz, there is definitely no assumption of homogenous plasmas, you obviously do not understand the purpose of drawn magnetic field lines, plasmas are basically NEVER infinitely conducting, but highly conducting, which means that to a certain degree (i.e. on time scales smaller than the diffusion time) the magnetic field may be considered frozen into the plasma, and yes, space plasma physics does talk about electric currents. As an example, my latest (accepted by peer reviewed journal of geophysics research) paper is called: Magnetotail Dipolarization and Associated Current Systems Observed by Cluster and DoubleStar.

get out of the plasma physical middle ages please!
 
Last edited:
Zeuzzz said:
But its a distance/velocity/redshift relationship that is based on very little. There are so many more possibilites that should be considered.
Click to expand...
FYI Zeuzzz: It is not based on "very little". It is based on a large and growing body of measurments. Determining the Hubble constant and the list of independent methods of determining distance to galaxies:
Cosmic distance ladder with a good diagram describing the various ranges in which techniques apply.

If you ignore the WMAP data then Hubble's constant is 72 ± 8 km/s/Mpc (obtained in 2001 by using NASA's Hubble Space Telescope).
The WMAP data gives a value of 70.1 ± 1.3 km/s/Mpc.

ETA: This page gives a list of 25 methods of determining distances (Hubble's law is the 26th) to stars and galaxies: The ABC's of Distances

My new personal favourite evidence for an expanding (or at least changing) universe is the Lyman-alpha forest. This shows that the density of neutral hydrogen increases as you go back in time. It is light from galaxies that ionizes neutral hydrogen. This demonstrates that galaxies started to ionize neutral hydrogen at a certain point in time and have continued to do so until today (reducing the density of neutral hydrogen).
It is almost as if galaxies just came into existence and stated to ionize hydrogen!
 
Last edited:
Zeuzzz said:
Yes I started answering Nereids questions, but she started to disagree with my answers, which I responded to, and whilst I was talking about that I got accused of not answering the original questions any more. So I answered a couple more, then got another accusation. Its a viscious cycle.

I am getting through them, but theres over fifty, and its much quicker to respond to current comments that keep dragging up old ones. I'm just lazy.
Click to expand...



Thanks , I doubt you are lazy. Perhaps it is a matter of what DRD calls 'the nature of acceptable evidence' that leads you to such frustration. If DRD is Neried then there is a long history of study and discussion in certain areas. So it may be that they have actualy studied this rather extensively and have asked questions that you have not considered.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom