Plasma Cosmology - Woo or not

tusenfem said:
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!
Click to expand...

Hello Tusenfem. Go get 'em.
 
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...
Well I guess we all know now, don't we?

Following your logic, those >fifty questions (or some subset) could simply be repeated every time you post to this thread, couldn't they? That would make them "current comments", wouldn't it? And it should be pretty easy to do, simply copy and paste from the posts, which are all conveniently located in a small number of summary posts ...

But maybe it's worth taking a little time to understand how this "viscious [sic] cycle" started?

Here's one attempt: it all began when Z refused to provide a succinct summary of PC; when he finally got around to it, the conclusion "PC is the very definition of woo" became immediately obvious (as I noted, not too long ago). Had the succinct definition been given on page 1 of this thread (as RC requested), by page 2 we'd have been pretty much done ... or at least getting deep into a discussion of the many, mutually inconsistent PC mechanisms to explain the Hubble relationship.

Of course, as any reader of this thread can quickly verify, Z's posting behaviour was anything but helpful, in terms of addressing the questions in the OP ... lengthy post followed by lengthy post and more and more, with nary a concern about the content of any response to such posts.

In short, the burden you now have Z is one entirely of your own making.
 
...

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....
I think I can agree with what you have said with the exception of the one item that I have bolded. I would be most interested to see any experimentally verified prediction, any rigorously derived non-trivial prediction whatever, (not including some of the plasma physics work of Alfven himself) from the PC or EU (Electrical Universe) contingent. The next one that I see will be the first one.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
DrRocket said:
[ QUOTE ]...

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....[ /QUOTE ]

I think I can agree with what you have said with the exception of the one item that I have bolded. I would be most interested to see any experimentally verified prediction, any rigorously derived non-trivial prediction whatever, (not including some of the plasma physics work of Alfven himself) from the PC or EU (Electrical Universe) contingent. The next one that I see will be the first one.
Click to expand...
Sorry, the post of mine you are quoting is/was ambiguous.

What I meant was that PC proponents make a huge song and dance about the need for predictions, and heap buckets of venom on those who develop models after the observations have been made.

I fully agree with you that, in this regard, their stance is hypocritical, cynical, ignorant, deluded, inconsistent, etc, etc, etc ... or any combo of any of these.

I meant that despite the strong rhetoric regarding the primacy of predictions, PC proponents cannot point to a single published paper with a prediction of the Arpian intrinsic redshifts (based on plasma physics), not to mention any postdictions either.
 
The Lyman-alpha forest

The forest is used to measure the amount of neutral hydrogen between us and distant galaxies and quasars. These measurements show that the amount increases as we look back in time. This is a really, really big problem for all steady state universe theories since they want the universe to look the same as we look back in time. They especially do not want the actual composition of matter in the universe (ionized vs neutral hydrogen) to change.

So now we know that there was a large amount of neutral hydrogen in the early universe and that this amount decreased.
What causes neutral hydrogen to decrease (become ionized)? Light ionizes hydrogen.
Where does light come? Galaxies.

So why did galaxies start to ionize neutral hydrogen at a certain point in the universe's history and not before? I can think of 2 reasons:
  1. They did not exist before then.
  2. There was a change in the fundemental laws of physics that allowed hydrogen to be ionized.
What is the pc explanation for this?
 
Zeuzzz said:
> 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.
Click to expand...

You don't believe in black holes either?
 
Last edited:
Reality Check said:
The forest is used to measure the amount of neutral hydrogen between us and distant galaxies and quasars. These measurements show that the amount increases as we look back in time. This is a really, really big problem for all steady state universe theories since they want the universe to look the same as we look back in time. They especially do not want the actual composition of matter in the universe (ionized vs neutral hydrogen) to change.

So now we know that there was a large amount of neutral hydrogen in the early universe and that this amount decreased.
What causes neutral hydrogen to decrease (become ionized)? Light ionizes hydrogen.
Where does light come? Galaxies.

So why did galaxies start to ionize neutral hydrogen at a certain point in the universe's history and not before? I can think of 2 reasons:
  1. They did not exist before then.
  2. There was a change in the fundemental laws of physics that allowed hydrogen to be ionized.
What is the pc explanation for this?
Click to expand...


Lyman-alpha absorption saturates when neutral H fractions which are very small, about one part in 104. Not a huge problem, but certainly a limiting factor, especially on z>6 quasars.

Infact the Lyman forest can be explained equally sufficiently by the most used PC redshift model, the Coherent Raman Emission of Incoherent Light. The very existance of the Lyman forest is infact strong evidcne for CREIL, and often is one of the first pieces of data cited when evidencing CREIL.

http://arxiv.org/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0404/0404207.pdf

Part IV: Coherent Raman Emission of Incoherent Light (CREIL)

Moret-Bailly has used the tensors of polarization and Raman scattering to derive a coherent radiation transfer function for broadband light. In his published works based on laser experiments, he points out “Impulsive Stimulated Raman Scattering” (ISRS) has been studied in laboratories since the 1960’s. ISRS effects are observed when differential lasers are trained on tubes containin g a gas in the presence of an electric field. In the resulting spectra, the higher frequency is redshifted and the lower frequency is blue shifted. [....]

Edited by jmercer: 
Removed for compliance with Rule 4 - too much text.
Click to expand...
You should read the links i provided earlier on this;

• Coherent Raman Effect on incoherent light (CREIL)




continuing from that publication:

Evidence of CREIL 1: The Paradoxical Lyman Forest

The Lyman Forest was first theorized by Gunn & Peterson, Scheuer and Shklovski in 1965. In theory, the intergalactic space is occupied by neutral hydrogen commoving with the expansion of the universe. As light from distance sources passes through these clouds, the Lyman UV peak (@1215.67 Å) absorbs and attenuates these light sources. As the relative motion of the intervening clouds of hydrogen decrease, the Lyman absorption lines move through this spectrum, creating a ‘picket fence’ of lines greatly attenuating the spectrum between the rest frame of the redshifted source and our telescopes.

Edited by jmercer: 
Removed for compliance with Rule 4 - too much text.
[....]
Click to expand...
And in addition to the CREIL explanation Brynjolfsson has an explanation for the Lyman forests, he thinks that it could be explained by... i'll let him explain. Not sure what I think yet, only just found it. Its based on the plasma redshift theory, which i'm still not sure of personally.

http://astroneu.com/new-evidence/

If there was some neutral H near us, moving at about our speed, we would see its Lyman Alpha absorption at a wavelength in the spectrum which is close to what it would be on Earth, in the UV part of the spectrum at 0.1216 um (1216 Angstrom). A photon of light with this wavelength has exactly the energy required to get the electron in an H atom from the lowest energy level to the one above, which is an energy difference of 13.6 electron volts. Two pages with good explanations of this are:

http://astron.berkeley.edu/~jcohn/lya.html
http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/astro/ research/cosmology.htm

Edited by jmercer: 
Removed for compliance with Rule 4 - too much text.
[....]
Click to expand...

Please read Rule 4 (and footnotes) regarding quoted text; we suggest no more than a paragraph and a link be presented. I have removed the excess text to put this post back into compliance.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: jmercer
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Tubbythin said:
You don't believe in black holes either?
Click to expand...


Prove that a singularity can exist in nature, not in mathmatical terms, and I'll fully beleive in black holes. They just stricke me as a mathematical extrapolation too far.

It also depends whether your speaking about mini, midi, or maxi black holes. I think that black hole candidates, like Cyg X-1 and A0620-00, that have been proposed (along with >50 more) to be black holes are actually binaries with large accretion disks (some 5 solar masses), and I have reservations over 'super massive' ones as burning H to Fe is almost as efficient lamp as accretion, giving a <1% of the rest energy, and this is also implied by their spectra which show high metal enrichment compared with solar abundances.
 
Zeuzzz said:
Lyman-alpha absorption saturates when neutral H fractions which are very small, about one part in 104. Not a huge problem, but certainly a limiting factor, especially on z>6 quasars.

Infact the Lyman forest can be explained equally sufficiently by the most used PC redshift model, the Coherent Raman Emission of Incoherent Light. The very existance of the Lyman forest is infact strong evidcne for CREIL, and often is one of the first pieces of data cited when evidencing CREIL.

http://arxiv.org/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0404/0404207.pdf

You should read the links i provided earlier on this;

• Coherent Raman Effect on incoherent light (CREIL)


continuing from that publication:

And in addition to the CREIL explanation Brynjolfsson has an explanation for the Lyman forests, he thinks that it could be explained by... i'll let him explain. Not sure what I think yet, only just found it. Its based on the plasma redshift theory, which i'm still not sure of personally.

http://astroneu.com/new-evidence/
Click to expand...
You should realize by now that no one ever reads all of the links that you spam the forum with. It is just too much work especially since pc includes dozens of theories.

Thanks for reminding me of Coherent Raman Effect on incoherent light.

It looks like we can now throw away all the other pc theories about redshifts that do not explain the Layman-alpha forest, e.g. Arp's intrinsic redshifts, Lerner's redshift, etc.
 
Zeuzzz said:
Prove that a singularity can exist in nature, not in mathmatical terms, and I'll fully beleive in black holes. They just stricke me as a mathematical extrapolation too far.
Click to expand...

If you get a large mass in a small enough region of space, it will form an event horizon. What exactly happens inside that event horizon (whether ir collapses to a true singularity or just something super-small) is actually irrelevant to the outside. The event horizon itself is not a singularity (well, it can be a coordinate singularity, but that's meaningless), and I think it's safe to call a massive object surrounded by an event horizon a "black hole" regardless of what's inside. So since singularities are what's bothering you, ignore the singularity: do you believe that black holes defined by the presence of an event horizon probably exist?
 
Reality Check said:
You should realize by now that no one ever reads all of the links that you spam the forum with. It is just too much work especially since pc includes dozens of theories.

Thanks for reminding me of Coherent Raman Effect on incoherent light.

It looks like we can now throw away all the other pc theories about redshifts that do not explain the Layman-alpha forest, e.g. Arp's intrinsic redshifts, Lerner's redshift, etc.
Click to expand...


Lerners redshifts? Please elaborate, I dont think that Lerner is a staunch Arp fan, and am unaware of any Lerner redshift theory. CREIL can actually account for Arps work.

And I like the way that posting alot of information about PC models equates to just spamming. Genius. :)

* Halton Arp's proposal of Machian mass of "young" matter, such as in quasars ejected from galaxies, producing longer wavelength resonance lines.
* CREIL (Coherent Raman Effects on Incoherent Light) from Jacques Moret-Baily.

I think the only two theories which are likely to be valid are Ari Brynjolfsson's and mine. If these theories work as well as their originators intend, they could explain:

* The redshift in space near quasars and at least some kinds of galaxy.
* The heating and acceleration of the solar corona. (No-one else has a plausible theory for this spectacular phenomena.)
* The observed cosmological redshift - the minimum redshift value of distant objects according to the Hubble "constant".
* Excess redshift in hot stars (Halton Arp's K-effect - see Ari Brynjolfsson's paper 5.6.4).
Click to expand...
 
Zeuzzz said:
Prove that a singularity can exist in nature, not in mathmatical terms, and I'll fully beleive in black holes. They just stricke me as a mathematical extrapolation too far.

It also depends whether your speaking about mini, midi, or maxi black holes. I think that black hole candidates, like Cyg X-1 and A0620-00, that have been proposed (along with >50 more) to be black holes are actually binaries with large accretion disks (some 5 solar masses), and I have reservations over 'super massive' ones as burning H to Fe is almost as efficient lamp as accretion, giving a <1% of the rest energy, and this is also implied by their spectra which show high metal enrichment compared with solar abundances.
Click to expand...
Ziggurat has already pointed out the black holes do not need a singularity.

The stellar black hole candidates are actually binary systems with large accretion disks. However we only see one star in optical frequencies (i.e. it is a normal star). The other star is only visible in x-rays and is invisible in optical frequencies. This makes it quite unique as far as stars go - there are plenty of x-ray emitting stars but they also emit in optical frequencies. So we need an object that produces x-rays from accretion disks but is not visible. Black holes fit the criteria. Neutron stars also fit the criteria but can be distinguished through their other properties (mass, differential rotation, possible magnetic field and localized explosions).

For an interesting black hole candidate have a look at the heaviest one that we have found so far (>14 solar masses): GRS 1915+105

As for supermassive black holes, I suggest that you look up Sagittarius A* and think about what a 3.7 million solar mass "star" burining H to Fe would look like (hint: it will be a lot bigger than the 45 AU maximum size and 1 AU probable size of Sagittarius A*).
 
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.
 
Reality Check said:
The stellar black hole candidates are actually binary systems with large accretion disks. However we only see one star in optical frequencies (i.e. it is a normal star). The other star is only visible in x-rays and is invisible in optical frequencies. This makes it quite unique as far as stars go - there are plenty of x-ray emitting stars but they also emit in optical frequencies. So we need an object that produces x-rays from accretion disks but is not visible. Black holes fit the criteria. Neutron stars also fit the criteria but can be distinguished through their other properties (mass, differential rotation, possible magnetic field and localized explosions).
Click to expand...


To me they all look like neutron stars surrounded by massive accretion disks of some 5-7 solar masses, and because of their often hard spectra (up to the gamma range), highly structured fluctuating light curves, occasional jet formation and super eddington behaviour, and because their other properties are nearly indistinguishable from currently known neutron star binaries. They just fill the gap between the low-mass and high-mass compact binary systems.



As for supermassive black holes, I suggest that you look up Sagittarius A* and think about what a 3.7 million solar mass "star" burining H to Fe would look like (hint: it will be a lot bigger than the 45 AU maximum size and 1 AU probable size of Sagittarius A*).
Click to expand...


I have numerous more problems with 'super massive black holes'. As I said before, burning H to Fe is almost as efficient lamp as accretion, giving a <1% of the rest energy, and this is also implied by their spectra which show high metal enrichment compared with solar abundances. They actually show >102 fold metal enrichment compared to solar abundances. There is also still a missing mass problem, some ~106.5 solar masses has been detected, but theories (based on quasars) predict 1010.5, hardly an insignificant difference. And i also think that the universality of the jet phenomenon suggests a universal engine which we know is a fast rotating magnet in the cases of newly formed stars, binary neutron stars, and young binary white dwarfs.
 
Last edited:
Zeuzzz said:
To me they all look like neutron stars surrounded by massive accretion disks of some 5-7 solar masses, and because of their often hard spectra (up to the gamma range), highly structured fluctuating light curves, occasional jet formation and super eddington behaviour, and because their other properties are nearly indistinguishable from currently known neutron star binaries. They just fill the gap between the low-mass and high-mass compact binary systems.
Click to expand...
They do not look like neutron stars to astronomers in general. They are definitely not "neutron star binaries" as in 2 neutron stars but maybe you mean a binary system with a neutron star.
Hard spectra (up to the gamma range), highly structured fluctuating light curves, occasional jet formation and super eddington behaviour are all properties of an accretion disk being heated up.
There are several candidates with masses that are too high for a neutron star. There are missing magnetic fields (e.g. pulsars are never considered to be black hole candidates). The candidates do not exhibit the localized explosions (starquakes and thermonuclear explosions due to impacts). Most telling is the lack of differential rotation.
There is a small chance that a few of the candidates are neutron stars but they would have to be very unusual neutron stars that act very much like black holes.

Zeuzzz said:
I have numerous more problems with 'super massive black holes'. As I said before, burning H to Fe is almost as efficient lamp as accretion, giving a <1% of the rest energy, and this is also implied by their spectra which show high metal enrichment compared with solar abundances. They actually show >102 fold metal enrichment compared to solar abundances. There is also still a missing mass problem, some ~106.5 solar masses has been detected, but theories (based on quasars) predict 1010.5, hardly an insignificant difference. And i also think that the universality of the jet phenomenon suggests a universal engine which we know is a fast rotating magnet in the cases of newly formed stars, binary neutron stars, and young binary white dwarfs.
Click to expand...
The 102 fold metal enrichment compared to solar abundances is in fact evidence that the energy is coming from an accretion disk not a star.
I would think that H to Fe burining would be something that is quite visible. It is in normal stars. I wonder why black hole candidates do not have the spectrums like normal stars. Maybe they are not normal stars.
I have no idea what this missing mass problem is. Citations?
However there is no missing mass in the supermassive black hole that is known to exist in the center of the Milky Way (Sagittarius A*).
The universality of the jet phenomenon just needs a spinning energy source, e.g a rotating magnetic field or an accretion disk powered by a black hole.
 
Zeuzzz said:
Translation: When a viable PC theory is presented to explain the data instead of addressing this I pick a publication related to PC that is inconsistent with it and dismiss the lot without addressing the theory being discussed.

Dare I ask which theory you deem inconsistent now?

Do you want to choose two theories like other cosmologies (as you said LCDM is relativity and DM) and limit my parameters? most of those things in your list are perfectly consistent. The cmb from early stellar evolution in the 4He synthesis which is thermalized and isotropized by the magnetically confined plasma filaments we have detected in the intergalactic medium, and 'because the amount of energy released in producing the observed amount of 4He is the same as the amount of energy in the CMB', and is part of Lerners model (ref: http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1896v1.pdf). Would be one.

What would you advise for my second, I could choose plenty, but which one would meet the criteria to brand PC a cosmology by your standards? Do I have to explain the Big Bang? the anisotropy of the cosmic gamma-ray background? :)
Click to expand...


It was a general comment but I would say that
  • a couple of the 3 or 4 (or more now Zeuzzz?) theories on cosmological redshift are inconsistent.
  • Peratt's plasma model of galaxy formation (aside from being debunked) does not quite match with Gallo's model which does not include Peratt galactic with and billion? light year long plsama filaments and yet produces the observed rotation curves.
  • Two or 3 (or more now Zeuzzz?) different explantions of the CMB.
  • There are no explicit cosmological theories mentioned, e.g. Quasi-Steady State Theory, which is surprising but if I just include all non Big Bang theories then they will be inconsistant.
If you want to redfine plasma cosmology yet again then free free to do so.

As for Lerner's model: It needs to be updated to look at more that the simple CMB parameters that it (and just about any other cosmological model) can fit. Strangely enough, science has advanced in the last few years and the CMB now has an accurate power spectrum. The Lambda-CDM model can match this power spectrum.
How is Lerner doing? He seems to be a bit silent on the fit of his model to the latest WMAP data. But he knows about thid data as shown in the above link.
 
Last edited:
Reality Check said:
You should realize by now that no one ever reads all of the links that you spam the forum with. It is just too much work especially since pc includes dozens of theories.
Click to expand...

You don't know what anybody but yourself does. One huge difference between Plasma proponents here, and most "skeptics", is the "crackpots" supply a huge amount of science and publications, allowing for investigation and study of stuff, while most of the critics offer only insults and derision. While I don't have the time or training to either read or understand most of the highly technical papers, I find it far more interesting to read them than read a boring stream of insulting responses, devoid of any science or rational thought.

Zeuzzz said:
And I like the way that posting a lot of information about PC models equates to just spamming. Genius. :)
Click to expand...

I advise use of the ignore feature, or just scrolling past obvious screed and trolling.

Reality Check said:
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).
Click to expand...

Nobody needs you to remind us of anything, much less your conclusions. :wackylaugh:

While I tend to avoid arguements online, I enjoy reading the never ending debate about plasma and related issues. I keep learning new stuff.

Considering the revolutionary developments currently in progress, especially regarding plasmas, electromagnetism, and how the Universe runs, it is all good.
 
Originally Posted by goodguyseatpie View Post
I suppose you have a post-hoc rationalization for the high-z Type Ia SN data (check it out a real refereed astronomy journal publication) that not only confirms many of the geometrical models of CDM BB cosmology, but of one of the novel and original predictions of general relativity: cosmic acceleration.

~ggep~
Click to expand...

Zeuzzz said:
Thanks, I'll check it out tomorrow. And Sn Ia data has an alternative explanation in PC; see http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/physics/pdf/0702/0702075v1.pdf for a start.
Click to expand...

Replying to post from the Young Galaxies thread. This thread is more appropriate now.

Zuezzz,
I am not really trying to be condescending, but you're revealing that you don't have a grasp of modern cosmology, beyond perhaps that which can be gleaned from the internet and popular level books. The accelerating expansion predictions of GR and subsequent confirmation by Kirshner, et al is a very well known result by now (a decade later). Your reply implies that you haven't read that research. Fine. But to put forward a paper that has to do with a very nearby supernova (1987A) and its morphology as an alternative explanation for observations surrounding high-z Type Ia supernovae demonstrates that you may be grasping at straws.

It may have been covered in this thread (though I haven't read all of it, I'll admit), but can I ask: how did you come to be interested in plasma cosmology, quantized redshifts, etc? (follow up: do you genuinely have confidence that PC is more successful than modern cosmology because you have deeply examined the merits of both, or do you have an idealogical reason for preferring PC?) Also: what training do you have in modern astrophysics? I do not mean these to be condescending questions, and I will not make negative remarks about your answers. They will just help me frame the context of how I read your posts (and at what level I can best reply in future posts)

~ggep~
 
robinson said:
You don't know what anybody but yourself does. One huge difference between Plasma proponents here, and most "skeptics", is the "crackpots" supply a huge amount of science and publications, allowing for investigation and study of stuff, while most of the critics offer only insults and derision. While I don't have the time or training to either read or understand most of the highly technical papers, I find it far more interesting to read them than read a boring stream of insulting responses, devoid of any science or rational thought.

I advise use of the ignore feature, or just scrolling past obvious screed and trolling.

Nobody needs you to remind us of anything, much less your conclusions. :wackylaugh:

While I tend to avoid arguements online, I enjoy reading the never ending debate about plasma and related issues. I keep learning new stuff.

Considering the revolutionary developments currently in progress, especially regarding plasmas, electromagnetism, and how the Universe runs, it is all good.
Click to expand...
Other people have commented on Zeuzzz's habit of overwhelming the threads with long posts of links. I consider this as spamming (others will disagree) since it makes the thread harder to read. It would be nice if he kept to a representative link for each point to be made. Maybe add the other links as something like "also see 1, 2, 3".

The list is not mine. It has been contributed to by various people (including Zeuzzz). The conclusion is not mine alone.

All of these theories that plasma cosmology has within it have certainly
expanded my horizons. Evaluating a crackpot collection like plasma cosmology forces you to look critically at the foundations of conventional theories. Before coming to this forum I just blindly accepted the Big Bang. Now that I see the quantity of evidence for it and the weakness of the other theories I now have a better (and critical) understanding of why the Big Bang is the accepted theory.
 
Reality Check said:
Other people have commented on Zeuzzz's habit of overwhelming the threads with long posts of links.
Click to expand...

Extensive links with partial quotations, supporting a scientific view, are exactly what a thread that is contentious should have.

Reality Check said:
I consider this as spamming (others will disagree) since it makes the thread harder to read.
Click to expand...

Your opinion is noted. I find extensive dumb posts with nothing to back them up far more irritating. As well as making a thread unpleasant to read.
 
robinson said:
Extensive links with partial quotations, supporting a scientific view, are exactly what a thread that is contentious should have.
Click to expand...
I agree with you. A link with partial quotations that supports a point made in a post is great.
Zeuzzz though is too fond of multiple links with multiple quotations to support a single point.

robinson said:
Your opinion is noted. I find extensive dumb posts with nothing to back them up far more irritating. As well as making a thread unpleasant to read.
Click to expand...
Ditto.
 
robinson said:
You don't know what anybody but yourself does. One huge difference between Plasma proponents here, and most "skeptics", is the "crackpots" supply a huge amount of science and publications, allowing for investigation and study of stuff, while most of the critics offer only insults and derision. While I don't have the time or training to either read or understand most of the highly technical papers, I find it far more interesting to read them than read a boring stream of insulting responses, devoid of any science or rational thought.
Click to expand...

Skeptics need to first be skeptical of there own assertions, simply being skecticlal of the assertions of others is not being a skeptic.

Crackpots certainly supply an overwhelming amount of references or quotes but that does not make them scientific. Likewise as you state “I don't have the time or training to either read or understand most of the highly technical papers” it has been made evident that many of the other PC supporters suffer from that same affliction.

The difference being, that those references, questions and quotes are specifically addressed by skeptics while opposing questions, references and quotes are ignored by PC psudo-skecptics.


robinson said:
Nobody needs you to remind us of anything, much less your conclusions.
Click to expand...


Everyone needs reminding form time to time, some more then others and to remind you that as a self professed technical person (or at least professed at technical terminology) you should take the time to understand those technical papers your refer to, instead of just confessing your ignorance and the utter lack of validity of your assertions. That you are essential ignorant (by your own admission) of the specific technical aspects of both positions is hardly a bases to disparage either of those positions.
 
robinson said:
One huge difference between Plasma proponents here, and most "skeptics", is the "crackpots" supply a huge amount of science and publications, allowing for investigation and study of stuff, while most of the critics offer only insults and derision.
Click to expand...

So you think Zeuzzz is somehow better positioned because he posts more links than his opponents. Well, posting links is fairly easy - so is using Google to look them up. But which side is it that does actual calculations to evaluate these ideas? It hasn't been Zeuzzz. He's avoided them like the plague, even when they demonstrate rather unambiguously that the plasma models for stuff like galactic rotation curves are nonsense. It's been the critics who have done the calculations, and its his (and frequently your) inability or refusal to actually address those calculations which have earned him scorn. So no, the skeptics have offered far more than insults.

While I don't have the time or training to either read or understand most of the highly technical papers,
Click to expand...

Then why are you impressed with links to them, if you can't even evaluate whether or not they support his position?
 
Ziggurat said:
So you think Zeuzzz is somehow better positioned because he posts more links than his opponents.
Click to expand...

No, but I find it more interesting to see why somebody supports something.

Ziggurat said:
Well, posting links is fairly easy - so is using Google to look them up.
Click to expand...

No, it isn't easy. If it was, you and others could offer refutations and rational scientific counters to explain your positions. With ease. It isn't just finding links, it is reading the lengthy reports, papers and other tiresome tasks, then finding relevant parts, then copy and paste, it is like work.


Ziggurat said:
But which side is it that does actual calculations to evaluate these ideas? It hasn't been Zeuzzz. He's avoided them like the plague, even when they demonstrate rather unambiguously that the plasma models for stuff like galactic rotation curves are nonsense.
Click to expand...

This is an example of what I was talking about. You just say stuff, rather than showing where the demonstration actually is.

Ziggurat said:
Then why are you impressed with links to them, if you can't even evaluate whether or not they support his position?
Click to expand...

Nobody said they were impressed. Your seeming inability to read what I wrote, doesn't endear me to your opinions. I said I find it more interesting than a stream of insults, off topic screed and the usual spench.

From what I can gather, the theories about Galaxy formation and rotation are not the simplistic ideas you seem to rail against.
 
robinson said:
No, it isn't easy.
Click to expand...

It's very easy. What it isn't is quick. I frankly have no interest in spending large amounts of time educating Zeuzzz or you. The time I've already spent doing that seems to have little to no impact.

This is an example of what I was talking about. You just say stuff, rather than showing where the demonstration actually is.
Click to expand...

You have been in those threads. I have little interest in spending the time to look up conversations you were part of for you.

From what I can gather, the theories about Galaxy formation and rotation are not the simplistic ideas you seem to rail against.
Click to expand...

I never said they were. Galactic formation is a messy business indeed. But you don't NEED to know how they formed to be able to figure out, for example, that magnetic fields CANNOT account for why they orbit faster than predicted by the gravitational attraction of visible matter alone. That calculation is easy. And magnetic effects come out something like 1020 times too low. So the alternative to dark matter proposed by Zeuzzz falls apart with freshman physics calculations.

So why does Zeuzzz believe what he believes, when the numbers demonstrate the absurdity of those beliefs? Perhaps he's simply credulous for a certain sort of authority. Apparently the words of certain plasma experts hold more weight for him than actual numbers.
 
tusenfem said:
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!
Click to expand...


tusenfem, if you have a problem with any of the plasma physics I have posted then please point it out.

I wanted to ask you, which do you think is primary, Ej or Bu? I tend to get different answers from people, some just say its an ambiguos question (which it is if your just looking at their basic relationship, they are equivalent) but I've always wanted to know if there is any proof either way as to which is primary. I suspect the current is primary, but noticed that some others have asserted that the bulk plasma flow is what drives the generation of current. I expect that the same proof could be derived for the Ej approach, considering that they are basically equivalent, but i'm not sure what distinguishes between a primary or secondary effect between the two.
 
Zeuzzz said:
Prove that a singularity can exist in nature, not in mathmatical terms, and I'll fully beleive in black holes. They just stricke me as a mathematical extrapolation too far.

It also depends whether your speaking about mini, midi, or maxi black holes. I think that black hole candidates, like Cyg X-1 and A0620-00, that have been proposed (along with >50 more) to be black holes are actually binaries with large accretion disks (some 5 solar masses), and I have reservations over 'super massive' ones as burning H to Fe is almost as efficient lamp as accretion, giving a <1% of the rest energy, and this is also implied by their spectra which show high metal enrichment compared with solar abundances.
Click to expand...

WOW Zeuzzz, so this brings me to the questions for the Lernerites:

What keeps a 300 solar mass accretion in an area of a sphere roughly 43 AU from collapsing?

What forces and energies keep such an object from contracting to a black hole under the forece of gravity. (We are talking galactic ceneters here).


So what keeps it from collapsing hmmm?
 
I like this publication you contributed to here tusenfem; (http://www.iwf.oeaw.ac.at/fileadmin/publications/mag_tail/volwerk_et_al_JGR_r_2008a.pdf) Magnetotail Dipolarization and Associated Current 1 Systems Observed by Cluster and DoubleStar

Its primarily an observational paper, is it not? With all these new powerful observations all these current systems are becoming clearly visible now.

And this paper is primarily about the cross-tail current, Pudovkin et al. showed that its power ε is related to the Poynting flux (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1986GeoRL..13..213P), proving that the solar wind–magnetosphere interaction constitutes a dynamo. I believe that it was also found that substorms typically begin when the power, ε, exceeds about 1018 erg/s for about 40 min, showng that substorms do not occur as a result of a spontaneous magnetic reconnection.

Instead of relying on the concept of magnetic reconnection Akasofu et al have shown that it may be worthwhile to consider that the solar wind–
magnetosphere dynamo generates two solenoidal currents in
the magnetotail. The flux transfer can be understood in terms of an
increase of the solenoidal currents caused by an increase of ε. Changes of the magnetic field configuration that are associated with the so-called “southward turning” of the IMF vector can be explained by an increase of the dynamo power ε.

solenoidalrp9.jpg
 
Please remember that Robinson is a contrarian and he is doing this to yank your chains. He also lampoons the PC side while appearing to support them.

Robinson, on Perrat''s rotaion curve model and the 'electric sun model' Ziggy, Sol and others pointed out that the math that would be used to support the PC explanation often fails to meet observations or has direct contradictions. Like stars blowing apart or the magnetic fields being too low. there is a whole thread devoted to the bad statistics of Arp's QSO/galaxy associations.

Do you deny that?
 
Last edited:
Dancing David said:
Please remember that Robinson is a contrarian and he is doing this to yank your chains. He also lampoons the PC side while appearing to support them.

Robinson, on Perrat''s rotaion curve model and the 'electric sun model' Ziggy, Sol and others pointed out that the math that would be used to support the PC explanation often fails to meet observations or has direct contradictions. Like stars blowing apart or the magnetic fields being too low. there is a whole thread devoted to the bad statistics of Arp's QSO/galaxy associations.

Do you deny that?
Click to expand...



Where is this calculation? it was likely;

a) Probably using a central magnetic field, which is nothing to do with Peratts model
b) To lower charge on the star
c) Not considering the interaction of the star with it local environment
d) Using to low density for the ISM (or, dare i say, not even including the ISM in the calulation)
 
Dancing David said:
... there is a whole thread devoted to the bad statistics of Arp's QSO/galaxy associations.

Do you deny that?
Click to expand...

I have no knowledge of any such thread. Here again is the difference between sides. PC proponents would have provided a helpful link to the thread, allowing me to decide if there was a thread, as well as read the thread.
 
Dancing David said:
WOW Zeuzzz, so this brings me to the questions for the Lernerites:

What keeps a 300 solar mass accretion in an area of a sphere roughly 43 AU from collapsing?
Click to expand...


Generally its the angular momentum. Many other people have this exact opinion on many BH candidates actually being neutron stars, that why I think its likely, for the reasons they have given.

Astrophysics of Neutron Stars - Facts and Fiction about their Formation and Functioning

An unconventional survey is presented of the observable properties of neutron stars, and of all astrophysical phenomena possibly related to them, such as their pulsing, clock irregularities, bursting, and flickering, the generation of cosmic rays, of gamma-ray bursts, and of jets, their birth, and their occasional transient appearance as 'supersoft' X-ray sources. The msec pulsars are argued to be born fast, the black-hole candidates to be neutron stars inside of massive disks, and the gamma-ray bursts to be sparks from dense 'blades' accreting spasmodically onto the surfaces of (generally) old neutron stars Supernovae - the likely birth events of neutron stars - are thick-walled explosions, not to be described by Sedov-Taylor waves, which illuminate their gaseous environs via collisions of their 'splinters'.
Click to expand...


And this later publication also considers some viable alternatives to black holes, as white dwarfs binaries with large accretion disks; http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/...GH&whole_paper=YES&type=PRINTER&filetype=.pdf

So what keeps it from collapsing hmmm?
Click to expand...


Angular momentum.
 
Last edited:
Zeuzzz said:
Where is this calculation?
Click to expand...

Dig it up yourself. You ignored it last time, I'm not going to spend the time tracking it down just so you can ignore it again.

a) Probably using a central magnetic field, which is nothing to do with Peratts model
Click to expand...

Actually, I think the field I used was from one of Peratt's papers. The approximate magnetic field of the galaxy can be measured, and the measurements don't provide anything close to big enough. Whether it's "central" or not is rather irrelevant: it's about 20 orders of magnitude too small to do the job, regardless of how you arrange it.

b) To lower charge on the star
Click to expand...

I believe the charge I used was also from one of your sources. You've said you think it could be much larger, but I've already listed why the reasons you think it might be larger are nonsense.

c) Not considering the interaction of the star with it local environment
Click to expand...

That will make the problem worse, not better. The local environment will contain much of the excess charge the sun ejected. A magnetic field will serve to pull the positive sun in the opposite direction as the negative surroundings, but once their charge centers are displaced, they will pull back towards each other. The local environment will thus act to counter the effects of a galactic magnetic field on the sun's galactic orbit.

d) Using to low density for the ISM (or, dare i say, not even including the ISM in the calulation)
Click to expand...

Are you saying that the interstellar medium could account for the mass that astronomers currently attribute to dark matter? If you are, you're wrong. If you mean something else, then you're being nonsensical, because the mass of the galaxy is the only way the interstellar medium could enter any of those calculations.
 
Ziggurat said:
It's very easy. What it isn't is quick. I frankly have no interest in spending large amounts of time educating Zeuzzz or you. The time I've already spent doing that seems to have little to no impact.

You have been in those threads. I have little interest in spending the time to look up conversations you were part of for you.
Click to expand...

Like I said, it isn't easy to find the relevant links to support a point. Nor do PC deniers seem to have a ready source of refutations to simply link to, each time somebody brings up what they consider a crackpot theory.

Ziggurat said:
But you don't NEED to know how they formed to be able to figure out, for example, that magnetic fields CANNOT account for why they orbit faster than predicted by the gravitational attraction of visible matter alone. That calculation is easy. And magnetic effects come out something like 1020 times too low. So the alternative to dark matter proposed by Zeuzzz falls apart with freshman physics calculations.
Click to expand...


There is a great example of the lack of data. There must be some papers that support your point. If you linked to them, I could read about how we know the strength or a galaxies electromagnetic field. How it is measured, maybe some cool pictures as well. Instead, we just have your word for it.

Ziggurat said:
So why does Zeuzzz believe what he believes, when the numbers demonstrate the absurdity of those beliefs?
Click to expand...

Let me help.

Zeuzzz, why do you believe what you believe?

Ziggurat said:
Perhaps he's simply credulous for a certain sort of authority.
Click to expand...

Zeuzzz, do you doubt the numbers that show plasma doesn't matter? Do you doubt the math that shows Dark Matter must exist, in a vast halo, around Galaxies? Do you doubt there is an unknown new type of matter that exists in vast invisible quantities? Giant globes of invisible stuff, exactly in the right place to explain the extremely odd galaxy rotation curves? If so, why?

Ziggurat said:
Apparently the words of certain plasma experts hold more weight for him than actual numbers.
Click to expand...

Zeuzzz, do you consider Plasma experts more knowledgeable than the bulk of scientist who believe in Dark Matter? If so, why?
 
robinson said:
There is a great example of the lack of data. There must be some papers that support your point. If you linked to them, I could read about how we know the strength or a galaxies electromagnetic field. How it is measured, maybe some cool pictures as well. Instead, we just have your word for it.
Click to expand...

No, actually, there really isn't a lack of data. Here is some (easily obtainable via google) information on how magnetic fields are measured in astronomy:
http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Galactic_magnetic_fields
That gives us a ballpark figure of about 10 microGauss, with some galaxies reaching around 100 microGauss. There are limits to the charge on the sun based on the rather simple fact that large charges cannot be confined to the surface. We know the velocity of the sun about the galactic center, as well as how far away it is, so we can calculate an acceleration. That's all you need: a charge, a magnetic field, a velocity, and an acceleration. And the numbers don't work. Not even close, not even allowing for an order of magnitude uncertainty in every single quantity in there.

But what difference will this post of mine make? Likely none. You will ignore or quickly forget the content here, and pretend that Zeuzzz's position is uncontradicted. As you've been doing for a long time now. You grow tiresome in your ignorance.
 
Bump ...
DeiRenDopa said:
Zeuzzz said:
... snip ...

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

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

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

Good, they do.

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

Good, it is.

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

Good, they have.

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

...

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

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

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

But then you already knew all this, right? So you have, presumably, already got a draft paper ready to submit to arXiv, in support of PC AND consistent with all the various observations, right? And you're only too pleased to roll up your sleeves and discuss the actual observations in all their gory details ... right?
Click to expand...
This post #144 in this thread; it is not even half-way down the first (of four) lists of open questions, to Zeuzzz, about material directly relevant to PC that he himself posted (not counting all the open questions since the last list was posted, on 12 June 2008).

Still waiting for some of those promised answers Z ...
 
robinson said:
Reality Check said:
You should realize by now that no one ever reads all of the links that you spam the forum with. It is just too much work especially since pc includes dozens of theories.
Click to expand...
You don't know what anybody but yourself does. One huge difference between Plasma proponents here, and most "skeptics", is the "crackpots" supply a huge amount of science and publications, allowing for investigation and study of stuff, while most of the critics offer only insults and derision. While I don't have the time or training to either read or understand most of the highly technical papers, I find it far more interesting to read them than read a boring stream of insulting responses, devoid of any science or rational thought.

... snip ...
Click to expand...
As a JREF Forum member who has, in fact, read almost all* the material Z and BAC have posted in this thread, permit me to make a comment here ...

A little over a month ago, I went through this entire thread, from the beginning, and compiled a list of posts of mine where direct questions about the material Zeuzzz has posted, of direct relevance to "Plasma Cosmology"^, had been asked but not answered.

Of course, the pages and pages and pages of links and extracts Z posted do indeed "allow[] for investigation and study of stuff".

However, the record of this thread itself, and your own posts in it robinson, is objective and unambiguous: whatever "Plasma Cosmology" is, it is not science.

I have posted the results of my own investigation and study, along with the reasons why the conclusion "PC is not science" is so clear-cut.

But not only is this conclusion crystal clear, those who have been particularly vocal in promoting (what they see as) plasma physics-based explanations of a huge range of astronomical observations have been almost entirely silent in addressing challenges to their ideas, answering questions on material they have posted, and so on.

And that includes you robinson.

So how may I interpret your post (that I am quoting)?

As the writing of someone very forgetful (despite dozens if not hundreds of posts that point to the opposite)? As a deeply cynical ploy to appear to keep some sort of high ground?

While I tend to avoid arguements online, I enjoy reading the never ending debate about plasma and related issues. I keep learning new stuff.

... snip ...
Click to expand...
If I may, I'll take you at your word, and in a later post I'll walk you through one aspect of the deep inconsistencies in "plasma cosmology" (at least as presented by Z, here in this thread). I shall try, hard, to keep the level sufficiently low that you can follow along, but I trust that you will respond in accord with the spirit of what you have written here, and ask questions about stuff you don't understand.

* there are a small number of items that I have been unable to obtain; sometimes it seems Z posted the wrong link (and didn't follow up with a correct one, when asked), and for ~3 items, I have not yet got an original.

^ whether "science or publications" or not; would you like the links to those lists?
 
Reality Check said:
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.
Click to expand...
There's more.

Here are some other ideas, hypotheses, theories, etc that Zeuzzz has presented as being part of the "PC collection"

* the cosmological redshift ideas of Ari Brynjolfsson (none of which have been published)

* various vaguely plasma-related ideas of Thomas Smid (none of which have been published)

* Cynthia Whitney's ideas (essentially gravity-based ideas on the causes of the persistence of spiral shapes in spiral galaxies)

* various ideas about Raman scattering as the cause of at least part of the observed redshifts of some astronomical objects (other than CREIL)

* a range of claimed observational results concerning the intrinsic redshift of quasars, QSOs, and/or AGNs - these are qualitatively similar to the Arp et al. ideas already on the list, but they are separate, and quantitatively inconsistent with Arp's.
 
robinson said:
Dancing David said:
... there is a whole thread devoted to the bad statistics of Arp's QSO/galaxy associations.

Do you deny that?
Click to expand...
I have no knowledge of any such thread. Here again is the difference between sides. PC proponents would have provided a helpful link to the thread, allowing me to decide if there was a thread, as well as read the thread.
Click to expand...
Really?

It's called Arp objects, QSOs, Statistics, and a certain JREF member posted to it, even on page 1. That member's handle? "robinson" ("Good Natured Skeptic Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: On the beach Posts: 5,841").

Are you old, Father William?
 
robinson said:
Ziggurat said:
It's very easy. What it isn't is quick. I frankly have no interest in spending large amounts of time educating Zeuzzz or you. The time I've already spent doing that seems to have little to no impact.

You have been in those threads. I have little interest in spending the time to look up conversations you were part of for you.
Click to expand...
Like I said, it isn't easy to find the relevant links to support a point. Nor do PC deniers seem to have a ready source of refutations to simply link to, each time somebody brings up what they consider a crackpot theory.
But you don't NEED to know how they formed to be able to figure out, for example, that magnetic fields CANNOT account for why they orbit faster than predicted by the gravitational attraction of visible matter alone. That calculation is easy. And magnetic effects come out something like 1020 times too low. So the alternative to dark matter proposed by Zeuzzz falls apart with freshman physics calculations.
Click to expand...
There is a great example of the lack of data. There must be some papers that support your point. If you linked to them, I could read about how we know the strength or a galaxies electromagnetic field. How it is measured, maybe some cool pictures as well. Instead, we just have your word for it.

[...]
Click to expand...
One of the JREF forum threads which contains the details is Something new under the sun.

Once again, a certain JREF forum member with the handle "robinson" posted to this thread, many times (at least once on ~half of the >30 pages, unless I goofed in my counting).

Here is part of what that member had to say, in a post towards the end of the thread: "I was commenting on the magnetism stuff. I almost started a thread on magnetism a long time ago, but this conversation, which started off about gravity, ended up being about plasma and magnetism and all kinds of fascinating stuff."

It gets better ...

That same "robinson" also wrote this, a bit later: "From reading and researching the presented material,"

Are you old, Father William?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom