Plasma Cosmology - Woo or not

Reality Check said:
Like Zeuzzz you have confirmed plasma cosmology as what it is: a collection of a dozen or more, arbitrary, often mutually inconsistent theories many of which have been debunked.
Click to expand...


I wrote, nor confirmed, nothing of the sort. I referred those interested to various peer-reviewed articles, not the contents of a post, or my interpretations.
 
iantresman said:
I wrote, nor confirmed, nothing of the sort. I referred those interested to various peer-reviewed articles, not the contents of a post, or my interpretations.
Click to expand...
Sorry - I thought that the first link was a mislabeled link to the nutty plasma cosmology site rather than the site about Plasma Physics that it really is.
It does have a few doubtful links (e.g. to Peratt's debunked galaxy formation model) but is in general standard plasma physics.
 
Last edited:
Reality Check said:
Sorry - I thought that the first link was a mislabeled link to the nutty plasma cosmology site rather than the site about Plasma Physics that it really is.
It does have a few doubtful links (e.g. to Peratt's debunked galaxy formation model) but is in general standard plasma physics.
Click to expand...


No problem. Yes, there are lots of speculative aspects to the Plasma Universe, but there is also much which is founded on standard mainstream plasma astrophysics. And no doubt aspects may be wrong, but science is built on the foundations of failed theories.
 
Reality Check said:
Sorry - I thought that the first link was a mislabeled link to the nutty plasma cosmology site rather than the site about Plasma Physics that it really is.
It does have a few doubtful links (e.g. to Peratt's debunked galaxy formation model) but is in general standard plasma physics.
Click to expand...

That's because it's Anthony Peratt's website.

whois said:
Domain name: PLASMASCIENCE.NET


Administrative Contact:
Peratt, Anthony a.peratt@att.net
551 Brighton Dr.
Los Alamos, NM 87544
US
505 672 6410 Fax: 000-000-0000
Click to expand...
 
iantresman said:
No problem. Yes, there are lots of speculative aspects to the Plasma Universe, but there is also much which is founded on standard mainstream plasma astrophysics. And no doubt aspects may be wrong, but science is built on the foundations of failed theories.
Click to expand...
The rest of the links are the standard stuff that I have seen before. Lots of standard plasma physics and some old theories.
A good thing about science is that scientists keep on making observations. Science is about theories that match observations and predict the results of future observation. This means that theories have to be updated to account for new observations. This is certainly true for Standard Cosmology.
Perhaps you can give us a link to a peer-reviewed paper on Plasma Cosmology that addresses more recent data, e.g. the COBE and WMAP data:
  • The cosmic microwave background which is a perfect black body thermal spectrum.
  • The power spectrum of the CMB anisotropy.
 
iantresman: There is no definitive one-line descriptions of Plasma Cosmology, as it is a combination of theories developed by more than one person. This seems to be no different from Standard Cosmology which includes theories and hypotheses that are continuous under development/refinement and change.

But you can discover more about Plasma Cosmology and the Plasma Universe, from reliable peer-reviewed or academic sources, which includes the quantitative details that are often omitted in these informal discussions.

Suggested reading (not necessarily the best, but available):

As RC has noted, almost all this material, inc. the various "peer-reviewed articles" listed, is at least a decade old*.

There has been an enormous change in the observational base for the study of cosmology in the past decade, in just about every class of phenomena/question - CMB, large-scale structure, evolution of galaxies, Hubble relationship, ...

Do you have anything to offer wrt why there is such an apparent dearth of published papers, on PC or PU, in the last decade? Why none of those who seemed to be so active in the 1970s, 1980s, and even the 1990s have apparently not availed themselves of any of the freely available, highly pertinent, much higher quality observations of the last decade or so?

* two exceptions: those in the section "ENERGETIC AURORAS: NEAR-EARTH MANIFESTATIONS OF THE PLASMA UNIVERSE", and ~3 in the preceding one.
 
Last edited:
iantresman: Yes, there are lots of speculative aspects to the Plasma Universe, but there is also much which is founded on standard mainstream plasma astrophysics. And no doubt aspects may be wrong, but science is built on the foundations of failed theories.

In the material you cited in your earlier post, what PC/PU aspects do you think have not been shown to be quite inconsistent with independent, multiple, high quality observations?

I know that's a question with a huge range, so let's start with just one: non-standard (i.e. PU/PC) explanations of the observed redshifts of galaxies, where the observed redshifts are 0.05 < z < 0.5.

Or, to express this another way, the Hubble relationship for galaxies with observed redshifts in the range 0.05 < z < 0.5.
 
DeiRenDopa said:
In the material you cited in your earlier post, what PC/PU aspects do you think have not been shown to be quite inconsistent with independent, multiple, high quality observations?
Click to expand...

A variant on that question - can you give one specific and concrete example of a quantitative prediction of PC which is not also a prediction of standard cosmology?

I asked Zeuzzz this same thing, and he failed to come up with anything. If indeed there is nothing, PC cannot be regarded as science.
 
sol invictus said:
A variant on that question - can you give one specific and concrete example of a quantitative prediction of PC which is not also a prediction of standard cosmology?

I asked Zeuzzz this same thing, and he failed to come up with anything. If indeed there is nothing, PC cannot be regarded as science.
Click to expand...


I can think of a few predictions. Probably more than the Big Bang has made.

Thats a very, very good question actually, what are the future predictions based on the Big Bang? I was under the impression that its predictive power has been somewhat lacking of late. But I may be wrong, post some of these predictions the Big Bang has in for us all, and when you've done that we can talk about the predictions of plasma cosmology. Starting with Lerners predictions. http://www.bigbangneverhappened.org/p27.htm


Let me have a go again RealityCheck. Since you persist in posting clearly false things about plasma cosmology.

First, there is the matter anti-matter theory of Alfven back in the 80's, which, although not completely ruled out, recieves little to no attention today. Since then the same appraoch has been continued by various scientists, Lerner, Peratt, Snell, Meierovich, etc, which were generally more sucessful than the previous model, but came at a time when no-one was interested, as they were all getting excited over all the new data and Big Bang focussed projects.

Ians page has some good info about the history and founders of PC here: http://www.plasma-universe.com/index.php/Plasma_cosmology

As I said before: "There have been numerous plasma cosmologies proposed over the years. This has lead to a generalising of the term plasma cosmology, and the term is often now used to describe any cosmology created within a plasma cosmology framework, instead of a specific cosmological theory. This can be compared to the various cosmological models formed within the Big Bang framework; the Big Bang itself would not be called a cosmology by itself, but cosmologies formed within this framework are. The most notable plasma cosmologies would be the original [[plasma cosmology]] of Hannes Alfvén, those theories developed by Peratt, Lerner and others ([[Plasma Cosmology (Lerner et al)]]), and various more recent models, such as the [[Plasma redshift]] cosmology of Ari Brynjolfsson, CREIL based cosmology of Jacques Moret-Bailly, and others. While some aspects of each are inconsistent, there are overlapping areas that are consistant, and it is likely that future plasma comologies will use aspects of each as theories are developed."

P.S. RealityCheck, you dont 'debunk' a scientific theory. Theories do not have a position on veracity, thats why we call them theories.
 
Last edited:
Zeuzzz: The most notable plasma cosmologies would be the original [[plasma cosmology]] of Hannes Alfvén,

Shown to be inconsistent with a wide range of independently verified observations and experiments, even while Alfvén was still active as a scientist.

those theories developed by Peratt, Lerner and others ([[Plasma Cosmology (Lerner et al)]]),

Not sure about the "et al", but for all the Peratt and Lerner "theories" presented by either Z or iantresman in this thread, to date, have been shown to be inconsistent with a wide range of independently verified observations and experiments.

and various more recent models, such as the [[Plasma redshift]] cosmology of Ari Brynjolfsson,

What is this? Per what's been presented in this thread, it's a paper in arXiv that has not been published yet. And no wonder, it contains some pretty gross misunderstandings of textbook quantum physics.

CREIL based cosmology of Jacques Moret-Bailly, and others.

Not sure about the "and others" (J Jensen?), but in terms of what's been presented in this thread, so far, these ideas have been shown to be inconsistent with a wide range of independently verified observations and experiments.

While some aspects of each are inconsistent, there are overlapping areas that are consistant, and it is likely that future plasma comologies will use aspects of each as theories are developed.

Now as Z has decided to not read this post, he is in no position to comment (unless someone quotes it), but "some" is, in fact, as presented in this thread so far, "all".

Of course, I may have missed something, so maybe a reader could point out which areas in the material posted by Z are:

a) individually consistent with the relevant, independently verified observations and experiments AND

b) consistent with a corresponding aspect in another item in the list.

Thanks Z; gross misrepresentation is a pretty good sign of woo (sol has also commented, several times, on your apparent extreme ignorance of even the most basic of aspects of physics, so it's possible that you yourself do not understand how gross your misrepresentations are).
 
General Question: in this Science etc section of the JREF forum, when someone persists in refusing to engage in discussion, but merely repeatedly posts the same (debunked) material over and over and over, what happens?

Specifically, how does the thread end? how can it end??
 
Zeuzzz said:
I can think of a few predictions. Probably more than the Big Bang has made.

Thats a very, very good question actually, what are the future predictions based on the Big Bang? I was under the impression that its predictive power has been somewhat lacking of late. But I may be wrong, post some of these predictions the Big Bang has in for us all, and when you've done that we can talk about the predictions of plasma cosmology. Starting with Lerners predictions. http://www.bigbangneverhappened.org/p27.htm
Click to expand...
See Errors in the "The Big Bang Never Happened" for problems and errors with these predictions.
One of his points to do with Big Bang cosmology is correct: there is a problem with the predicted abundance of lithium - it is out by a factor of 2.
There is no problem with the large scale structure and voids - Lerner just ignores dark matter. The LCDM computer simulation gives good matches to what we see.
The first year fit to the WMAP date from BB cosmology was not good but that fit is outdated. The fit to the 3 and 5 year WMAP data is much better. No sign of Lerner's fit to the WMAP data yet inless I have missed a paper.

Zeuzzz said:
Let me have a go again RealityCheck. Since you persist in posting clearly false things about plasma cosmology.

First, there is the matter anti-matter theory of Alfven back in the 80's, which, although not completely ruled out, recieves little to no attention today. Since then the same appraoch has been continued by various scientists, Lerner, Peratt, Snell, Meierovich, etc, which were generally more sucessful than the previous model, but came at a time when no-one was interested, as they were all getting excited over all the new data and Big Bang focussed projects.

Ians page has some good info about the history and founders of PC here: http://www.plasma-universe.com/index.php/Plasma_cosmology

As I said before: "There have been numerous plasma cosmologies proposed over the years. This has lead to a generalising of the term plasma cosmology, and the term is often now used to describe any cosmology created within a plasma cosmology framework, instead of a specific cosmological theory. This can be compared to the various cosmological models formed within the Big Bang framework; the Big Bang itself would not be called a cosmology by itself, but cosmologies formed within this framework are. The most notable plasma cosmologies would be the original [[plasma cosmology]] of Hannes Alfvén, those theories developed by Peratt, Lerner and others ([[Plasma Cosmology (Lerner et al)]]), and various more recent models, such as the [[Plasma redshift]] cosmology of Ari Brynjolfsson, CREIL based cosmology of Jacques Moret-Bailly, and others. While some aspects of each are inconsistent, there are overlapping areas that are consistant, and it is likely that future plasma comologies will use aspects of each as theories are developed."
Click to expand...
Nice history. Where is the core of plasma cosmology?, i.e. a set of consistant theories that match existing data and make falsifiable, testable predictions? It would be good if this was current, e.g. updated in the last 5 years.


Zeuzzz said:
P.S. RealityCheck, you dont 'debunk' a scientific theory. Theories do not have a position on veracity, thats why we call them theories.
Click to expand...

You may be confused between the English definition of theory (an idea) and the scientific definition of theory (an idea that explains data, makes falsifiable, testable predictions and is refined (or discarded) as new data is obtained).

But you are sort of right. You can state that a theory is based on incorrect premises (e.g. ignores gravity), does not fit observations (e.g. tries to compare mass distribution with hot star distribution (spiral arms)) and makes predictions that are not observed (200 billion plasma filaments that are as wide as galaxies, 1000's of light years long and powerful enough to spin galaxies).


So Peratt's scientific theory of galaxy formation is
  • Based on false premises.
  • Does not fit observations.
  • Makes false predictions.
I think I will summarize this as a debunked (false, incorrect) scientific theory.

I agree with you - the Big Bang theory has been much too successful and we are running out of falsifiable testable predictions. We should throw it away and start all over again :D !
 
DeiRenDopa said:
Actually, it might be interesting to hear from others who have participated in this thread too, on the question of why they think PC is woo (or not) ... and what they understand PC to be.
Click to expand...

I think that the problem is that PC is not really well defined, as has been shown numerous times, and one should see it in a larger context. I know that several scientists discuss the plasma universe (in the context of magnetospheric physics) but they hardly mean an electric sun. There is a gray zone here.

Let's take an example, the book by Peratt "the plasma universe." Most of that book is regular plasma physics, where it is interesting that an important place is given to the diocotron instablility, which you will not find often in a plasma physics book, which is there, because Peratt wants to use that instability later in the book to create structures in plasmas. I have no problems with that book (not that I use it much) until chapter 8, which is an introduction to his ideas about galaxy formation. The book only shows the basics of PIC simulation of cosmic plasmas, which is okay, but the IEEE paper on galaxy formation, I think he is overdoing the "plasma stuff" and there it gets woo, IMHO.

The other part is that there are a lot of self-educated "plasma-astrophysicists" who seem to very much cherry-pick plasma physics, only taking out the bits that suit their ideas, and never properly have been "forced" to go through the nitty-gritty in college (like myself). This leads to the idea, e.g. of the infallibility of Hannes Alfvén, anything he wrote or said must be gospel, and why exactly should that be? Is that not why we had the reformation?

So, in the end, PC, depending on who you listen to, can either be as mainstream as Hilton Paris, or as woo as George Bush, there is no real bifurcation line, but like I said above, a large gray region. PC is in the eye of the beholder.
 
Zeuzzz said:
I can think of a few predictions. Probably more than the Big Bang has made.

Thats a very, very good question actually, what are the future predictions based on the Big Bang? I was under the impression that its predictive power has been somewhat lacking of late. But I may be wrong, post some of these predictions the Big Bang has in for us all, and when you've done that we can talk about the predictions of plasma cosmology. Starting with Lerners predictions. http://www.bigbangneverhappened.org/p27.htm
Click to expand...

Actually, there is a very LARGE paper discussing the development of the universe, based on mainstream physics (including the BB), which discusses the 5 stages or ages of the universe as it gets older (assuming that the universe is eternally expanding). I cannot find the paper, I hope some of the other people have a link to the pdf. There is a LOT of prediction in there on how the universe will develop itself (quite scary in some places).

ETA: Ah I found at least a website with this story here from the university of Michigan.

I also would not give Lerner the benefit of the doubt, one only has to read this page listing all the errors in Lerner's book.

ETA: oops, just saw that RC had already put this link in.
 
Last edited:
DeiRenDopa said:
General Question: in this Science etc section of the JREF forum, when someone persists in refusing to engage in discussion, but merely repeatedly posts the same (debunked) material over and over and over, what happens?

Specifically, how does the thread end? how can it end??
Click to expand...


It doesn't, until the thread participants stop posting.
 
Zeuzzz said:
I can think of a few predictions. Probably more than the Big Bang has made.
Click to expand...

I didn't ask you, Zeuzzz, I asked Ian. You and I have already been through this, and you failed at it over and over again throughout months of squirming. I don't care to go through that again.

There are literally millions of predictions of standard cosmology/BBT I could mention off the top of my head. Every time a telescope explores a new region of space, every time an instrument with better resolution looks at something we've already observed, basically, every astrophysical observation made anywhere in the world - standard cosmo predicts the results of nearly all of them. That's because cosmology is a real physical science.

As for PC, I won't hold it to anywhere near that standard. I don't care if the prediction is actually a postdiction. I just want one specific and concrete phenomenon which PC explains in a way which is consistent with data but different from standard cosmo.
 
Interestingly, with respect to the sun being influenced by electromagnetic forces, while reading through the "errors in BBNH" page I found this calculation about the magnetic force or the electrostatic force holding the sun in its orbit around the galactic centre.
 
tusenfem said:
Interestingly, with respect to the sun being influenced by electromagnetic forces, while reading through the "errors in BBNH" page I found this calculation about the magnetic force or the electrostatic force holding the sun in its orbit around the galactic centre.
Click to expand...

Yes, and of course he comes to the same conclusions we did. He's being extremely generous to PC in his numbers, so his result for the force is that it's merely 17 orders of magnitude too weak (I think we came up with 22 or 24, I can't remember for sure).
 
One thing I have found quite interesting in reading the material cited by Z and iantresman is how the black-and-white woo aspect of PC, as presented by Z, arose.

Is it crystal clear in Alfvén's works, for example, or did it creep in later in the writing of Peratt or Lerner?

First, though, a reminder of what this unambiguous non-science aspect is.

Recall Z's post #684 in this thread, where he quotes from a wikipage written by Lerner (extract, my bold):

The basic assumptions of plasma cosmology which differ from standard cosmology are:

1. Since the universe is nearly all plasma, electromagnetic forces are equal in importance with gravitation on all scales.[10].
2. An origin in time for the universe is rejected,[11] due to causality arguments and rejection of ex nihilo models as a stealth form of creationism.[12]
3. Since every part of the universe we observe is evolving, it assumes that the universe itself is evolving as well, though a scalar expansion as predicted from the FRW metric is not accepted as part of this evolution

In repeating the succinct definition of PC, in post#952, Z strengthens this point, and thus the case that PC is non-science (again, extract, my bold):

E) Since every part of the universe we observe is evolving, it assumes that the universe itself is evolving as well. A scalar expansion as predicted from the FRW metric is not accepted as part of this evolution, ie, the universe is assumed as static and infinite.

It is important to note that I am focussing on only one aspect here; it may well be that an equally strong case for PC being non-science (and hence the very definition of woo) can be made from other aspects.

Lerner's wikipage gives [12] as "Alfven, Hannes, "Cosmology: Myth or Science?" (1992) IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science (ISSN 0093-3813), vol. 20, no. 6, p. 590-600."; interestingly, a paper by Alfvén with the same title was published in 1984 (J. Astrophs. Astr. (1984) 5, 79-98).

Many of the themes in the PC material presented by Z and iantresman are clearly stated in this 1984 Alfvén paper, but wrt the applicability of General Relativity (GR) to cosmology Alfvén is much more cautious than Lerner, Z, (or iantresman?).

Specifically, in section 4.3, Alfvén makes a general case, with order-of-magnitude estimates, that GR is likely to be essentially trivial, phenomenologically, over lengths of ~1 billion pc and densities comparable to that of the local universe, and adds (in a footnote) "What is said should not be interpreted as a questioning of the general theory of relativity. It is only an attempt to clarify to what extent it is applicable to cosmology."

Since 1984, there has been a huge increase in published astronomical observations directly relevant to cosmology, with many of the uncertainties and open questions of 1984 addressed.

In particular, the small number of concrete challenges Alfvén mentions (he does not develop any of them), directly relevant to the applicability of GR to cosmology, have been resolved very convincingly; the hierarchical structure of the observable universe has been determined to a far greater degree of precision, and over a far greater scale for example. In a scientific sense then, Alfvén's objections have been addressed, and the case for the applicability of GR to cosmology is objectively overwhelming, both in the actualistic and prophetic senses Alfvén mentions.

And it seems that in at least one of his later papers* Alfvén all but acknowledges this! In this paper he presents a version of Klein's cosmological model in which the universe evolves, from the time radiation streamed free, similar to that of 'the Big Bang Theory'. Unfortunately, this paper contains no quantitative account of the expansion history (the axes in Fig 6 have no scales, for example), so one cannot check whether Alfvén adopted GR explicitly. And, sadly, one can read the text of this paper and conclude that Alfvén (and Klein) display one of the most basic misunderstandings of the Hubble relationship (some sort of explosion vs an expansion), and an all but certain misunderstanding of GR ("Annihilation increases with increasing density, and eventually it is large enough to convert the contraction into expansion").

So how did Lerner (and Peratt?) abandon science when his intellectual grandfather (Alfvén) apparently never did? How did it come about that GR was declared inapplicable to cosmology by fiat, rather than by the usual methods of science?

And why is there so little discussion of this radical departure from Alfvén's own approach, in the material Z and iantresman have presented?

* "Cosmology in the Plasma Universe: An Introductory Exposition" (IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science Vol. 18 No. 1)
 
Last edited:
Dancing David: It [a thread] doesn't [end], until the thread participants stop posting.

Thanks; that's what I feared.

In a situation where one party simply re-posts the same material over and over again, irrespective of how many times its content has been shown - six ways to Sunday - to be unscientific ("woo"), debunked, strongly inconsistent with the relevant, good, independently verified observations and experiments, what tactics do you think have merit?

For example, modulo an introductory sentence or paragraph, does it make any sense to repost a succinct summary of why the repeatedly posted material is woo/debunked/etc?
 
DRD: Specifically, in section 4.3, Alfvén makes a general case, with order-of-magnitude estimates, that GR is likely to be essentially trivial, phenomenologically, over lengths of ~1 billion pc and densities comparable to that of the local universe

Clarification: I do not mean to imply that Alfvén's estimates are correct (or not) or that his approach to making these estimates is sound (or not); I am merely pointing out that this is what Alfvén presented, in that section of his 1984 paper. Indeed, it's pretty much moot anyway, because astronomical observations since 1984 provide a far better basis for making such estimates (and I think it all but impossible to produce such estimates today, based on the relevant observations, which would show GR to be essentially trivial over the relevant distance and time scales).
 
DeiRenDopa said:
Dancing David: It [a thread] doesn't [end], until the thread participants stop posting.

Thanks; that's what I feared.

In a situation where one party simply re-posts the same material over and over again, irrespective of how many times its content has been shown - six ways to Sunday - to be unscientific ("woo"), debunked, strongly inconsistent with the relevant, good, independently verified observations and experiments, what tactics do you think have merit?

For example, modulo an introductory sentence or paragraph, does it make any sense to repost a succinct summary of why the repeatedly posted material is woo/debunked/etc?
Click to expand...


that is the nature of a sceptics forum, if it is one poster or many. the response is the same.

You will note the the Patterson-Gimlin thread in general scepticism is ongoing.

You will see that certain subject attract woo and that they are often addressed here. for me it is mainly the crap about mental illness that i fight with vigor. It re-occurs on a regular basis.
 
Reality Check said:
[*]What is Plasma Cosmology?
Click to expand...

Sorry I missed this conversation earlier but I thought I put in my two cents worth now anyway.

In its most generic definition, PC/EU theory is the application of MHD theory to objects in space.

[*]How do it's predictions fit the observed data, e.g. the CMB anisotropy?
Click to expand...

The CMBR was originally calculated in 1926 by Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington using the formula E = σT4 which predicted an ambient temperature of 3 K - very near the measured value of 2.73 K. In other words, It fits perfectly.

[*]What falsifiable predictions does it make?
Click to expand...
Well, let's start in the solar system with some of the predictions made by Kristian Birkeland. Using his electrical solar model he "predicted" high energy coronal "loops", the acceleration of solar wind particles, "jets" streaming off the sun, persistent aurora on Earth, etc. All of these things have been "observed" by satellites in space.

A scientitic theory has to make falsifiable predictions so that it can be tested to see if it is valid or not.
Click to expand...

How exactly does one falsify inflation considering we now know that that there are "dark flows" and things that don't jive with a predicted homogeneous distribution of matter?
 
Michael Mozina said:
In its most generic definition, PC/EU theory is the application of MHD theory to objects in space.
Click to expand...
Not so EU, as they deny the validity of MHD theory.

Michael Mozina said:
The CMBR was originally calculated in 1926 by Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington using the formula E = σT4 which predicted an ambient temperature of 3 K - very near the measured value of 2.73 K. In other words, It fits perfectly.
Click to expand...
Rubbish. The Stefan-Boltzmann Law only gives the area under the curve, ignoring the shape of the curve. The CMBR has a Planck Law shape, a completely different beast. And Eddington himself made the obvious point that what he calculated was an effective temperature, because he knew very well that the starlight was non-thermal. So on this you are dead wrong.
 
Tim Thompson said:
Not so EU, as they deny the validity of MHD theory.
Click to expand...
Electric Universe people are in agreement with Hannes Alfvén's view of magnetohydrodynamics, the man who won the Nobel Prize in physics for "for fundamental work and discoveries in magnetohydrodynamics (MHD) with fruitful applications in different parts of plasma physics"(ref)

However, Alfvén emphasized that MHD does not apply to all kinds of plasmas, and noted the suitability of MHD in his book, co-authored with Carl-Gunne Fälthammar, Cosmical Electrodynamics. This is summarised in the table here.

I'm sure Tim, that you are not suggesting that MHD is valid for all plasma?

Tim Thompson said:
Rubbish. The Stefan-Boltzmann Law only gives the area under the curve, ignoring the shape of the curve. The CMBR has a Planck Law shape, a completely different beast. And Eddington himself made the obvious point that what he calculated was an effective temperature, because he knew very well that the starlight was non-thermal. So on this you are dead wrong.
Click to expand...

Didn't George Gamow predict a temperature of 50 degrees, before revising it? See George Gamow, The Creation Of The Universe (1946) p.40 (Dover reprint of revised 1961 edition), and I don't think he mentions anything about the shape of the curve? I don't think anyone mentions the shape of the curve until Ralph Alpher and Robert Herman in 1948, see Helge Kragh, Cosmology and Controversy: The Historical Development of Two Theories of the Universe (1999) page 132.

See also "History of the 2.7 K Temperature Prior to Penzias and Wilson" (PDF) (1995)
 
Well, dead wrong is fitting in an attempt to revive a dead thread, still an excellent job Tim Thompson in only your 4th post. How does one falsify EU theories? Michael Mozina, until one can get PC/EU theories to actually be consistent with current observations, they falsify themselves. You did not miss the conversation earlier, you just choose not to read or acknowledge those pervious discussions, as it is retained here for anyone to review.
 
iantresman said:
Electric Universe people are in agreement with Hannes Alfvén's view of magnetohydrodynamics, the man who won the Nobel Prize in physics for "for fundamental work and discoveries in magnetohydrodynamics (MHD) with fruitful applications in different parts of plasma physics"(ref)

However, Alfvén emphasized that MHD does not apply to all kinds of plasmas, and noted the suitability of MHD in his book, co-authored with Carl-Gunne Fälthammar, Cosmical Electrodynamics. This is summarised in the table here.

I'm sure Tim, that you are not suggesting that MHD is valid for all plasma?



Didn't George Gamow predict a temperature of 50 degrees, before revising it? See George Gamow, The Creation Of The Universe (1946) p.40 (Dover reprint of revised 1961 edition), and I don't think he mentions anything about the shape of the curve? I don't think anyone mentions the shape of the curve until Ralph Alpher and Robert Herman in 1948, see Helge Kragh, Cosmology and Controversy: The Historical Development of Two Theories of the Universe (1999) page 132.

See also "History of the 2.7 K Temperature Prior to Penzias and Wilson" (PDF) (1995)
Click to expand...


Oh here we go again, get out of your antiquated views of magneto hydrodynamics and science in general iantresmen. Things develop, science changes, if you want to stay in the 70’s or refer to predictions of the 40’s then be my guest, when you want to join us and actually contribute to the 2100 era of science, please let us know
 
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.
 
Michael Mozina said:
The CMBR was originally calculated in 1926 by Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington using the formula E = σT4 which predicted an ambient temperature of 3 K - very near the measured value of 2.73 K. In other words, It fits perfectly.
Click to expand...

Or not.

Well, let's start in the solar system with some of the predictions made by Kristian Birkeland. Using his electrical solar model he "predicted" high energy coronal "loops", the acceleration of solar wind particles, "jets" streaming off the sun, persistent aurora on Earth, etc. All of these things have been "observed" by satellites in space.
Click to expand...

Have you got an electrical solar model that gives a star hydrostatic equilibrium? Its just previous attempts at such models on this board have all fallen at that rather important hurdle.
 
The Man said:
Oh here we go again, get out of your antiquated views of magneto hydrodynamics and science in general iantresmen.
Click to expand...

Antiquated views of magnetohydrodynamics (MHD)? Sorry, I'm not with you. Are saying that:

(a) MHD is valid for all space plasmas
(b) MHD is invalid for all space plasmas
(c) MHD is valid for some space plasmas, and invalid for others.
(d) MHD theory automatically expires after 40 years?
(e) Science today, has a different view of MHD.
(f) Perhaps you're hinting at Hall MHD?
 
Tim Thompson said:
Not so EU, as they deny the validity of MHD theory.
Click to expand...

No one I know denies the validity of MHD theory Tim. This is obviously an incorrect assessment on your part.

Rubbish. The Stefan-Boltzmann Law only gives the area under the curve, ignoring the shape of the curve. The CMBR has a Planck Law shape, a completely different beast. And Eddington himself made the obvious point that what he calculated was an effective temperature, because he knew very well that the starlight was non-thermal. So on this you are dead wrong.
Click to expand...

Mainstream theories can't explain the CMBR without resorting to ad hoc and make-believe entities like inflation. You're the one who's dead wrong on this issue. There is a long history of "explanations" for the background radiation prior to Guth's introduction of "inflation". I tried to post a link, but alas I don't have enough posts yet to do that, but there are plenty of examples of an "explanation" being offered *before* the idea of inflation.
 
Tubbythin said:
Or not.
Click to expand...

I'm afraid that your response was a bit cryptic. It's not altogether clear from glancing through that article what your primary objection is. You'll note that early CMB estimates from BB theory were *much* higher than what was observed.

Have you got an electrical solar model that gives a star hydrostatic equilibrium? Its just previous attempts at such models on this board have all fallen at that rather important hurdle.
Click to expand...

Since when was the sun at "hydrostatic equilibrium"? In your opinion, why does the solar wind accelerate as it leaves the photosphere and why does it reach a million miles per hour or more by the time it reaches Earth?
 
Michael Mozina said:
Mainstream theories can't explain the CMBR without resorting to ad hoc and make-believe entities like inflation. You're the one who's dead wrong on this issue. There is a long history of "explanations" for the background radiation prior to Guth's introduction of "inflation". I tried to post a link, but alas I don't have enough posts yet to do that, but there are plenty of examples of an "explanation" being offered *before* the idea of inflation.
Click to expand...

Regardless of your opinions on inflation, you were still "dead wrong" on Rutherford predicting the CMBR.
 
Tubbythin said:
In a way. The Jeans criterion determines whether a gas cloud will contract to a star or not. I was asking how an "electric star" doesn't implode/explode.
Click to expand...

Birkeland's electric star didn't explode in the lab, it was simply a cathode. What in your opinion is generating those million degree coronal loops, or that accelerating solar wind? Why would an electric star "explode" or "implode" in your opinion?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom