Plasma Cosmology - Woo or not

Sol88 said:
So imho that's a problem for big bangers to work out, good luck and let us know how you go! :D
Click to expand...

Er. So you have absolutely no explanation whatsoever for the presence of the CMBR or the fact that the Universe is very very close to flat? As for Hubble and the Lyman-alpha forrest, I only have your word for it that Arp's paper is really and landmark. And you didn't answer Olbers' at all. Should a PC Universe be bright all over, if not why not?

In the EU/PC model most of those problems are not even there, if the redshift assumptions is wrong then there is no Hubble relationship problem, it is something the mathematicians have caused themselves bit silly eh?
Click to expand...
The redshift is an observed experimental fact. The interpretation of that redshift may be open to debate but not the fact that the redshift is there. So, what is the consistent alternative PC/EU theory?
 
Zeuzzz said:
Plasma Cosmology - Woo or not

Not.
Click to expand...

So... please be my guest Zeuzzz:
Perhaps you might like to give us a consistent PC theory that explains all of the following:
The Hubble relation
The CMBR
The Lyman-alpha forest
Olbers' paradox
The flatness problem
The horizon problem
The abundance of the elements
???
 
Oh, and Sol88. COuld you also tell us the age of the Universe in your theory and whether said theory is consistent with the laws of thermodynamics?
 
Sol88 said:
Fifth, The CMBR:
Click to expand...

That assessment is wrong. Big bang cosmology does not need to assume that there are no temperature gradients, nor are such gradients of much significant to the line shape. In fact, we can measure temperature gradients in the CMB (they're small, but they exist), but they do not change the line shape. That line shape is well explained by the big bang model (without the need to assume no temperature gradients), but it is unexplained by any of the plasma cosmologists.

In the EU/PC model most of those problems are not even there
Click to expand...

In the sense that you just ignore them, sure, they're "not there". But that's all you've done: you've ignored the problems completely, you haven't actually proposed any solutions whatsoever.

if the redshift assumptions is wrong then there is no Hubble relationship problem
Click to expand...

That's a mighty big "if". And if you're relying on Arp to rescue you from the Hubble relationship, well, you're backing a losing horse. His surveys are uncontrolled junk. Furthermore, saying that the Hubble relationship is wrong doesn't solve the problem: regardless of how well correlated those red shifts are with distance, they are still redshifts, and they still need to be explained. Arp can't actually do so in any sensible way, and neither can you.
 
Zeuzzz said:
Plasma Cosmology - Woo or not

Not.
Click to expand...
This was established many, many posts ago.
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...


Of course many of the mutually inconsistent theories included in pc are wrong, e.g.
  • Peratt's plasma model of galaxy formation - he neglects gravity, no evidence of billions of galactic sized plasma filaments, etc.
  • Coherent Raman Effect on incoherent light - redshift of host galaxies = redshift of quasar.
  • Errors in Tired Light Cosmology.
And then there is the inability of these theories to actually match observations, e.g. a CMB that has a perfect black body thermal spectrum.
 
Sol88 said:
So imho that's a problem for big bangers to work out, good luck and let us know how you go!
Click to expand...
Sol88: You are falling into the basic logic trap that other PC proponents on the furum have fallen into. This is that assuming that showing that BBT has problems means that PC does not have problems.

Showing that BBT has problems has no bearing on whether any other theory is better or not.

You need to answer the actual question. This was (emphasis added)
Tubbythin said:
Perhaps you might like to give us a consistent PC theory that explains all of the following:
The Hubble relation
The CMBR
The Lyman-alpha forest
Olbers' paradox
The flatness problem
The horizon problem
The abundance of the elements
???
Click to expand...
The flatness and horizon problems are an expanding universe feature so you can ignore them if the PC theory "is assumed to contain an infinite number of uniformly distributed luminous stars".
 
Sol88 Rides Again!

Sol88 said:
Perhaps we could pick up were we left off, with no threat of being banned like some other no name forum, for stepping outside the box? Perhaps your other mates might like to step in now we are on an even playing field? Tusenfem, Neried, Antioseb and so forth??
Click to expand...
I thought the screen name looked familiar. You were banned for being obnoxious & insulting, and I see you are primed & ready to demonstrate the same attitude here. Be my guest. You will find that there are people here to cover the subject well enough.

Sol88 said:
Can charge separation happen in space on large scales Tim?
Click to expand...
Not the way you want it to happen, with huge electron streams. The fact that protons are more massive than electrons means that you can get gravitational charge separation even in an electron/proton plasma; heavy ions or charged dust grains can amplify the effect, but in any case the effect is not significant for large scale processes. You can also get charge separation by imposing a magnetic field on the plasma, but that too is rarely significant over large scales.

Sol88 said:
Does the movement of plasma constitute an ELECTRIC current and it's attendant magnetic counterpart, Tim?
Click to expand...
The movement of plasma will not normally constitute an "electric" current in the colloquial sense, where an "electric" current consists of a flow of like charged particles (i.e., electrons or protons). But of course, the flow of a charge neutral plasma will generate a magnetic field.

Sol88 said:
Do the experiments conducted in the lab on Earth have any bearing on the 99% of the Universe that is Plasma? i.e. z-pinch, double layers, field aligned current (aka Birkeland currents), long range attractiveness short range repulsive forces and filamentation among others, Tim
Click to expand...
Of course they do, but it does require some understanding of physics to know how the experiments relate to systems they are not intended to model. There are astrophysical doubler layers, field aligned currents, filaments & etc. The difference between real physics, and plasma cosmology is that plasma cosmologists think that everything they see is plasma (every filament is a plasma filament & etc.), while real physicists realize there are other forces at work. In particular, we know that the filaments seen in star formation are not plasma filaments because they occur in cold molecular clouds.

Sol88 said:
Even a second year high school student could identify an energy source for Plasma universe! :jaw-dropp
Click to expand...
Well then this is your chance to prove you are at least as smart as one of them and tell us what it is.

Sol88 said:
That's good Tim, gravity operating as we know it does!!! :rolleyes: So umm.. how do we make gamma rays on Earth using gravity? or X-rays or even radio waves??
Click to expand...
Now you're just being silly. Real astrophysics involves heavy doses of plasma physics, electro magnetism, and other non-gravitational forces. The gamma rays are generated by electrical discharges in the form of lightning, for broad band emissions, and by nuclear physics processes for narrow band emission. There, does that make you feel better? Do you actually have a point to make?

Sol88 said:
The BB theory was "made up" before we got into space, ... The new Plasma cosmology is on the money!!! :)
Click to expand...
BB theory works just fine, and the "new" plasma cosmology is as dead & gone as the "old" one.
 
Zeuzzz said:
Plasma Cosmology - Woo or not

Not.
Click to expand...
Plasma Cosmology - Woo or not

Woo.

Why?

Per the definition of Plasma Cosmology, supplied by Z himself:
Lerner said:
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 (see static universe).
Click to expand...
(bold added)

Yep, that's right ... Plasma Cosmology includes, as a basic assumption, an explicit rejection of General Relativity (GR).

Now is GR rejected because it is internally inconsistent? No.

Because it is inconsistent with relevant experimental results? No.

Because it is inconsistent with relevant observations? No.

Why is it explicitly rejected? Because .... just because.

A more concise, clear example of the very definition of scientific woo would surely be hard to find.
 
Sol88 said:
Can charge separation happen in space on large scales Tim?

Does the movement of plasma constitute an ELECTRIC current and it's attendant magnetic counterpart, Tim?

Do the experiments conducted in the lab on Earth have any bearing on the 99% of the Universe that is Plasma? i.e. z-pinch, double layers, field aligned current (aka Birkeland currents), long range attractiveness short range repulsive forces and filamentation among others, Tim

Even a second year high school student could identify an energy source for Plasma universe! :jaw-dropp



That's good Tim, gravity operating as we know it does!!! :rolleyes: So umm.. how do we make gamma rays on Earth using gravity? or X-rays or even radio waves??

The BB theory was "made up" before we got into space, now we have and with what we've discovered it should be given the credit it deserves and put to rest, it just does not work and no matter what you add to it to try and make it work it will not! it so passe and 19th century :)

The new Plasma cosmology is on the money!!! :)

Perhaps we could pick up were we left off, with no threat of being banned like some other no name forum, for stepping outside the box? Perhaps your other mates might like to step in now we are on an even playing field? Tusenfem, Neried, Antioseb and so forth??

I'd love a debate again without you being able to push the panic button! :eek:
Click to expand...
(bold added)

Welcome to the JREF Forum, Sol88! :)

Have you had a chance to read through this thread, paying particular attention to the content of the posts?

If so, you'll have noticed that Z tried very, very hard to make a case that Plasma Cosmology (PC) is not (scientific) woo. Sadly, he failed dismally.

Along the way, he was asked questions about the material he so diligently posted; sadly, he answered only a small handful of those questions.

Would you like to pick up where he left off, and have a go at answering those open questions now?

In any case, to what extent is PC defined as Eric Lerner defined it (see link in my last post, to Z's)? Specifically, do you too reject GR out of hand (by fiat)?
 
Sol88 said:
Ok, Tubbythin first, unfortunatly you will have to wait for my fifteen post to come up before any links can be posted as per forum rules!

[...]
Click to expand...
No matter that you have not got a post count of 15+ yet or not, I suspect that quoting material - as you have done - without acknowledging the source is not only very bad form, and not only (likely) against the JREF Forum rules, but is also something you may get banned for if you keep doing it.

You see, this forum is no more exempt from the various countries' laws on copyright than any other forum.

In any case, perhaps you'd be kind enough to state your sources, maybe in such a way that you don't have to post a link? By putting spaces between the letters in the URL(s), for example.
 
Sol88 said:
Ok, Tubbythin first, unfortunatly you will have to wait for my fifteen post to come up before any links can be posted as per forum rules!



Ok the first, The Hubble relation

Halton C. Arp
Halton C. Arp is one of the key actors in the contemporary debate on the origin and evolution of galaxies in the universe. His landmark compilation of peculiar galaxies led him to challenge the fundamental assumption of modern cosmology, that redshift is a uniform indicator of distance.
Click to expand...

[...]
Click to expand...
OK, so?

Surely it is irrelevant who Halton C. Arp is, and also irrelevant what he challenged, isn't it?

Surely the key question is whether his challenge was successful, isn't it?

Sol88, while you're new to this forum - so may be somewhat excused for you evident ignorance - don't you think it would have been wise to check to see if Arp's ideas had already been covered here? As in 'here in this thread' and 'here in this part of the JREF Forum'?

You see, if you'd done your homework, you'd have discovered that several people - with thousands of posts to their names - have tried to show that Arp's challenge (that you quote) is (was) successful; sadly, they failed (usually rather spectacularly, for example by displaying such a gross ignorance of Arp's own work as to be laughable, or publicly flunking Statistics 101).
 
Reality Check
The flatness and horizon problems are an expanding universe feature so you can ignore them if the PC theory "is assumed to contain an infinite number of uniformly distributed luminous stars".
Click to expand...

Ok I agree with that, so as I understand it their are an infinite number of electrical/plasma focus objects in the Universe most usually clumped or structured into a coherent form and CONNECTING them are Birkeland currents electrical transmission lines on just about any scale you'd care to pick up.

From the ones that connect Us (Earth) to the Sun, and the sun to Heliopuase and up thru plasma tendency to show hierarchical structure and form, I can't give you an answer to the "next" one up, but I'd hazard a queses based on plasma TESTED in a lab and say it's on the same/associated Birkeland filament.

So if there are Universal, Cosmic and Solar Birkeland currents everywhere, then Olbers paradox is not a problem and if they radiate at microwave frequencies then the sky would be a perfect "fog" of microwave energy!

And since the flatness and horizon problems are solved thru the universe not having to expand under EU/PC then their goes redshift and the Hubble relations as well, because, correct me if I'm wrong, but they take NO account whatsoever of electrical plasma effects that the plasma and electric universe nuts imagine they have the power to do. :eye-poppi

So that leaves the Lyman Alpha problem which I must admit I not so clued up on but give us a bit :)

So I repeat for the benefit of our esteemed Tim T, EU does not ignore these problems they just simply do NOT exist under the EU/PC paradigm and that's it's beauty!! :shocked : (love the emo, but a bit harsh on the eyes, need a Lighting bolt or something!!)

When my posts catch up to the 15 post limit, we can start doing the abstract tennis thing again.
 
Surely it is irrelevant who Halton C. Arp is, and also irrelevant what he challenged, isn't it?
Click to expand...

My friend you tripp'n? irrelevant wouldn't be the word I'd have used!


Surely the key question is whether his challenge was successful, isn't it?
Click to expand...

Very much so!! It's still very debatable whether he's work has credence or not, pity he was denied the telescope time to prove it either way!

You see, if you'd done your homework, you'd have discovered that several people - with thousands of posts to their names - have tried to show that Arp's challenge (that you quote) is (was) successful; sadly, they failed (usually rather spectacularly, for example by displaying such a gross ignorance of Arp's own work as to be laughable, or publicly flunking Statistics 101).
Click to expand...

If you say so, but it's not your job to say over and over again and tell readers here the dogma YOU believe, when most people here can learn for themselves.
 
Last edited:
Tim Thompson said:
Well, I guess that's the end of that. The very heart of prejudice; heaven forbid that you actually try to learn anything about the topic, lest knowledge interfere with your philosophical comfort zone.
Click to expand...

See paper below.

And you would be wrong. The reality is that the formation of filaments is a complicated affair that involves thermodynamics, hydrodynamics, plasma physics, magnetic fields, and more. You would simply ignore everything except plasma physics, and you would therefore guarantee that you are wrong. So, we see for instance An Origin of Filamentary Structure in Molecular Clouds; Nagai, Inutsuka & Miyama; The Astrophysical Journal, 506(1): 306-322, October 1998. Here the authors demonstrate how gravitational collapse will form filamentary structures, given an initially spherical cloud. There is a lot of physics involved; angular momentum, thermodynamics, gravitation, magnetic fields and more. But the primary driver of collapse is gravity, not a "pinch", which would probably not be effective at such large scales anyway. But of course this will not change your mind, since it's all "equations", and you don't see any need to bother with such trivialities.
Click to expand...


From reading around the math, and asking other people about what type of math is required to be able to check or refute the work in that paper, perturbation theory on that level is of no benefit. It would not convince me of the correctness of the arguments.

The basic idea is that you still need some event(perturbation) to come along and trigger a collapse from self-gravitating, filamentary molecular clouds into dense cores, H-H objects(proto stars), jets and outflows. And there is something balancing those clouds against gravity otherwise they would have collapsed at the same time as the filaments(preferential), or a "long time ago"....


The magnetic fields and or dense core out flows that thread the molecular clouds are not aligned with the intergalactic magnetic field. There is no causal link as to how the helical rotating(!) magnetic fields that thread through the filaments in the molecular cloud are created or sustained(some guesses). Velocity measurements indicate bulk flow in the filaments.

If you want all the references that went into that statement, let me know.

But it is important to establish the ultimate source for the energy that drives the process. The mainstream clearly identifies gravity as the ultimate energy source. Furthermore, we can see when we examine the details that gravity, operating as we know it does, in the context of physics as we know it, will in fact produce detailed structures the are consistent with what we actually see when we look at the universe. You, on the other hand, cannot identify an energy source, and cannot demonstrate even qualitatively that the physical processes you allege could in fact produce structures similar to those we see in the real universe. That makes your idea inferior.
Click to expand...

Okay. Would it make you happier if I said its a big black hole rotating in the center of the universe. That is the mother generator!!!!!!

I could also say its a phenomenon that happens when the aether touches space. Very gently.... Aether flows downhill.....

It could be that our sun is a hollow iron sphere that resonates like a Tesla coil with the aether sink at the center of our galaxy and glows like a plasma ball.

It could be the difference between the outer edge of the galaxy and the center and if there are filaments connecting galaxies its the mother generator....

2 plasma clouds of differing potentials?

All plasma radiates from this. Yeah I know but lets just pretend for a moment....

And given enough time and grants I could prove it, but I dont have a lifetime left...

And finally ...


Why, because there are a lot of them? But there are a lot more who do accept big bang cosmology, so if you are impressed by mere numbers, why not go with the mainstream? Or perhaps it's because all the alternative types are really smart? But there are even more really smart people in the mainstream, so if that's what impresses you, why not go with the mainstream? Or maybe it's as simple as them saying what you want to hear, so naturally they must be right?

All of the arguments I have ever seen in opposition to mainstream "big bang" cosmology are inferior to the counter arguments. I don't say that all of the alternative ideas are stupid; quite the contrary, many are quite clever. And I don't think that all of the alternative thinkers are stupid either; quite the contrary, many are quite intelligent. I simply say they are all "wrong" in the sense of presenting ideas inferior to their competition.

But, of course, all of the serious contenders have learned a thing or two about those pesky equations.
Click to expand...


Again those pesky equations will not tell you if an idea is correct, just that it will work on paper. And we use them all the time for most of daily routine. I'm not arguing against that.
I'm saying that sometimes there is a unintentional misapplication of math to shift the balance of an idea. And in cosmology this seems to have gotten out of control.
There is no turning back now, the only thing that can happen is convergence. The problem is it takes longer.

And who is to judge if an idea is inferior??? If the model is wrong it could be a great idea. I know what you meant to say but still, in the course of nature we have no idea what is inferior and its difficult to fully subjectively evaluate an idea. I know you take issue with that statement but its what I believe.

Take the (2) super high energy GRB/unknown events where the high and low energy EM showed up at different times. Why invoke new physics?

Why not just say it was a z-pinch on a large filament?

See x-ray output.
Status of Z-Pinch ICF Research.
http://fire.pppl.gov/fpa06_matzen_zicf.pdf
 
Last edited:
Tim wrote
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Can charge separation happen in space on large scales Tim?
Click to expand...
Not the way you want it to happen, with huge electron streams. The fact that protons are more massive than electrons means that you can get gravitational charge separation even in an electron/proton plasma; heavy ions or charged dust grains can amplify the effect, but in any case the effect is not significant for large scale processes. You can also get charge separation by imposing a magnetic field on the plasma, but that too is rarely significant over large scales.
Click to expand...

That, I think is our sticking point Tim, scale? We are talking magnetic fields over cosmic distance's talk about charge storage, via separation of charges! :jaw-dropp

I mean even our rather, small, in the scheme of things "big", Moon, can levitate dust and cause weather with winds with speeds of up to 1kms, as most other airless rocky bodies immersed in the Sun's plasma sheath do,because of charge separation!

So I ASSUME it happens to any body in such an environment including comets! And if mathematical gravity can runaway into any sort of singularity then if there where no feedback mechanism to stop runaway charge separation... it's a big Universe, the mind boggles :eye-poppi
 
Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Does the movement of plasma constitute an ELECTRIC current and it's attendant magnetic counterpart, Tim?
The movement of plasma will not normally constitute an "electric" current in the colloquial sense, where an "electric" current consists of a flow of like charged particles (i.e., electrons or protons). But of course, the flow of a charge neutral plasma will generate a magnetic field.
Click to expand...

Cool so we agree on that, stick something in that flow and whalla charge separation, with it's E and B fields and an electric current!
 
Of course they do, but it does require some understanding of physics to know how the experiments relate to systems they are not intended to model. There are astrophysical doubler layers, field aligned currents, filaments & etc. The difference between real physics, and plasma cosmology is that plasma cosmologists think that everything they see is plasma (every filament is a plasma filament & etc.), while real physicists realize there are other forces at work. In particular, we know that the filaments seen in star formation are not plasma filaments because they occur in cold molecular clouds.
Click to expand...

Not everything only the 99% that is plasma, gravity most prolly explains the other 1% so well done!
 
Now you're just being silly. Real astrophysics involves heavy doses of plasma physics, electro magnetism, and other non-gravitational forces. The gamma rays are generated by electrical discharges in the form of lightning, for broad band emissions, and by nuclear physics processes for narrow band emission. There, does that make you feel better? Do you actually have a point to make?
Click to expand...

No point, but that's how I understand it as well :) depends on the size of the lightning I guess?
 
No matter that you have not got a post count of 15+ yet or not, I suspect that quoting material - as you have done - without acknowledging the source is not only very bad form, and not only (likely) against the JREF Forum rules, but is also something you may get banned for if you keep doing it.
Click to expand...

I am not real clued up on copyright but a link to the originating site sould be proof enough I'm not ripp'n someones work off?
 
I'd like to expand the assumption of the Hubble constant, according to this site
Consequence
The Hubble law has a profound consequence.

* Galaxies are moving away from us.
* That is, the distance to any other typical Galaxy X is increasing with time.
* That is, if we go back in time, the distance gets smaller.
* That is, sometime in the past the distance between us and Galaxy X was 0.
Click to expand...
here tp://zebu.uoregon.edu/~soper/Galaxies/hubble.html

the EU/PC way of seeing this"problem" is

The Hubble Arp law has a profound consequence.

* Galaxies are moving away from us. are of a different age than us
* That is, the distance to any other age of any typical Galaxy X is increasing with time.
* That is, if we go back in time, the distance age gets smaller younger. .
* That is, sometime in the past the distance/age between us and Galaxy X was 0

Base your assumptions on that and see what you come up with! :jaw-dropp
 
Also i'd like to expand on Olbers paradox and it's relation to the CMBR

from ttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olbers%27_paradox

Assumptions

What if every line of sight ended in a star? (Infinite universe assumption #2)

If the universe is assumed to contain an infinite number of uniformly distributed luminous stars, then:

1. The collective brightness received from a set of stars at a given distance is independent of that distance;
2. Every line of sight should terminate eventually on the surface of a star;
3. Every point in the sky should be as bright as the surface of a star.
Click to expand...

What if every line of sight terminated on a Birkeland current and it's associated synchrotron radiation? I mean not all the emission are in the visible spectrum so I guess it would appear "dark", as per Synchrotron radiation spectrum for galactic-sized plasma filaments, from

Peter, W.; Peratt, A.L.
Plasma Science, IEEE Transactions on
Volume 18, Issue 1, Feb 1990 Page(s):49 - 55


Summary:The radiation spectrum for synchrotron-emitting electrons in galactic-sized Birkeland current filaments is analyzed. It is shown that the number of filaments required to thermalize the emission spectrum to blackbody is not reduced when a non-Maxwellian electron distribution is assumed. If the cosmic background radiation (CBR) spectrum (T=2.76 K) is due to absorption and re-emission of radiation from galactic-sized current filaments, higher-order synchrotron modes are not as highly self absorbed as lower-order modes, resulting in a distortion of the blackbody curve at higher frequencies. This is especially true for a non-Maxwellian distribution of electrons for which the emission coefficient at high frequencies is shown to be significantly less than that for a Maxwellian distribution. The deviation of the CBR spectrum in the high-frequency regime may thus be derivable from actual astrophysical parameters, such as filamentary magnetic fields and electron energies in the model
Click to expand...

link here tp://ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplore/login.jsp?url=http%3A%2F%2Fieeexplore.ieee.org%2Fiel1%2F27%2F1720%2F00045503.pdf%3Farnumber%3D45503&authDecision=-203

So there IS another way to interpret this information and not just the narrow minded view expelled by some!
 
Last edited:
Sol88 said:
[...]
DeiRenDopa said:
Surely the key question is whether his challenge was successful, isn't it?
Click to expand...

Very much so!! It's still very debatable whether he's work has credence or not,
Click to expand...
It is?

Debatable by whom? I mean apart from you ...

Please explain how Arp's work - on challenging the empirical reality of the Hubble relationship - is credible.

See below for a link to an extensive (several pages long) discussion of the Hubble relationship, in a thread elsewhere in this section of the JREF Forum.

pity he was denied the telescope time to prove it either way!
Click to expand...
Really?

How do you know that?

I mean a) that "he was denied telescope time", and b) that he would have used the telescope time to challenge the empirical reality of the Hubble relationship?

You see, if you'd done your homework, you'd have discovered that several people - with thousands of posts to their names - have tried to show that Arp's challenge (that you quote) is (was) successful; sadly, they failed (usually rather spectacularly, for example by displaying such a gross ignorance of Arp's own work as to be laughable, or publicly flunking Statistics 101).
Click to expand...

If you say so, but it's not your job to say over and over again and tell readers here the dogma YOU believe, when most people here can learn for themselves.
Click to expand...
If you say so; I was trying to be helpful, and short-circuit a great deal of very boring repetition (not to mention your time wasted writing posts that do little more than destroy your credibility and show - once more - that Plasma Cosmology is scientific woo).

In the JREF Forum thread Alernatives: Cosmological redshift/BBE I answer Skwinty's and PS' questions on how we can determine how much of the redshift, observed in an astronomical object, is due to the Hubble flow, and how much to other causes. Perhaps you would like to read that material, and join in the discussion?
 
Last edited:
Sol88 said:
Reality Check
The flatness and horizon problems are an expanding universe feature so you can ignore them if the PC theory "is assumed to contain an infinite number of uniformly distributed luminous stars".
Click to expand...
Ok I agree with that, so as I understand it their are an infinite number of electrical/plasma focus objects in the Universe most usually clumped or structured into a coherent form and CONNECTING them are Birkeland currents electrical transmission lines on just about any scale you'd care to pick up.
Click to expand...
(bold added)

There are? (I assume "their" was a typo).

What is the observational evidence of this?

Specifically, do I understand you correctly, that you think stars are "electrical/plasma focus objects"?

From the ones that connect Us (Earth) to the Sun,
Click to expand...
There's another thread here, called "Lambda-CDM theory - Woo or not?", that may be relevant.

In it Michael Mozina (MM) presents material from a 994-page document by Birkeland.

It seems clear that neither Birkeland nor MM would agree with you, concerning the Sun and Earth being connected by "Birkeland currents electrical transmission lines".

Are you saying that both Birkeland and MM are wrong?

and the sun to Heliopuase and up thru plasma tendency to show hierarchical structure and form, I can't give you an answer to the "next" one up, but I'd hazard a queses based on plasma TESTED in a lab and say it's on the same/associated Birkeland filament.
Click to expand...
Well, don't say I didn't try to help you ...

Zeuzzz (Z) tried this line, over many pages (and with fewer spelling mistakes), earlier in this thread.

He failed, rather dramatically.

You see, no one - not Alfvén, Peratt, not Lerner, not Scott, ... - has been able to show the reality of these hierarchical Birkeland currents.

And I see that you don't claim to either ("I'd hazard a queses"); so until you can make such a claim - backed by scientific evidence - it would seem that PC cannot explain Olbers' paradox, can it?

So if there are Universal, Cosmic and Solar Birkeland currents everywhere, then Olbers paradox is not a problem
Click to expand...
(bold added)

Ah, but as there aren't ("Universal, Cosmic and Solar Birkeland currents everywhere"), then it remains a problem, doesn't it?

After all, I'm applying "Sol88 logic" - pointing to an assumption is sufficient to make my case ...

and if they radiate at microwave frequencies then the sky would be a perfect "fog" of microwave energy! [...]
Click to expand...
It would?

But do these Birkeland currents - if they exist - "radiate at microwave frequencies"?

After all, if they don't, then there would be no "perfect "fog" of microwave energy", would there?

In any case, more assumptions, so case closed (per Sol88 logic).

Not much point continuing really is there ... I mean the foundations do not exist, so the stuff higher up the logic chain is gone, isn't it?
 
Sol88 said:
I'd like to expand the assumption of the Hubble constant, according to this site
Consequence
The Hubble law has a profound consequence.

* Galaxies are moving away from us.
* That is, the distance to any other typical Galaxy X is increasing with time.
* That is, if we go back in time, the distance gets smaller.
* That is, sometime in the past the distance between us and Galaxy X was 0.
Click to expand...
here http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~soper/Galaxies/hubble.html

the EU/PC way of seeing this"problem" is

The Hubble Arp law has a profound consequence.
Click to expand...
(bold added)

What is the "Arp law"?

* Galaxies are moving away from us. are of a different age than us
* That is, the distance to any other age of any typical Galaxy X is increasing with time.
* That is, if we go back in time, the distance age gets smaller younger. .
* That is, sometime in the past the distance/age between us and Galaxy X was 0
Click to expand...
How can the age of a galaxy be estimated, Sol88?

I mean, using plasma physics and based on what we can observe (of the galaxy)?

In any case, are Type Ia supernovae (SNe) standard candles, in PC?

How about Cepheids?

What is the PC explanation for the Tully-Fisher relation?

How were Friedman et al. able determine H0 if they were not measuring distances?

Base your assumptions on that and see what you come up with! :jaw-dropp
Click to expand...
I came up with a list of serious problems.

Perhaps the worst one is that it requires the Milky Way to be the centre of the universe.

Or do you think it is not?

Oh, and it also violates the second law of thermodynamics ... a consequence of which is that plasma physics is complete garbage (so there could be no "Universal, Cosmic and Solar Birkeland currents everywhere", for example).

(I made the URL work)
 
Sol88 said:
So I ASSUME it happens to any body in such an environment including comets! And if mathematical gravity can runaway into any sort of singularity then if there where no feedback mechanism to stop runaway charge separation... it's a big Universe, the mind boggles :eye-poppi
Click to expand...

Are you saying what I think you're saying?
 
Sol88 said:
Also i'd like to expand on Olbers paradox and it's relation to the CMBR

What if every line of sight terminated on a Birkeland current and it's associated synchrotron radiation? I mean not all the emission are in the visible spectrum so I guess it would appear "dark", as per Synchrotron radiation spectrum for galactic-sized plasma filaments

...snip...

So there IS another way to interpret this information and not just the narrow minded view expelled by some!
Click to expand...

Olbers paradox was "described by the German astronomer Heinrich Wilhelm Olbers in 1823 (but not published until 1826 by Bode) and earlier by Johannes Kepler in 1610 and Halley and Cheseaux in the 18th centuryWP". Thus it was stated in terms of the light that they knew about, i.e. visible light ans so a "bright" night sky.

It actually refers to all light - including light emitted by a "Birkeland current" - and even includes neutrinos.

Thus you have just stated an argument against plasma cosmology (or at least your personal version of it that includes an infinite number of Birkeland currents).

In actual fact there is another implied argument against plasma cosmology: You quote a paper published in 1990 that predicts "a distortion of the blackbody curve at higher frequencies". That was before the CMB COBE (launched November 18, 1989) and WMAP (launched 2001) measurements.

Can you give us citations to the followup papers by Peter, W.; Peratt, A.L. showing that their predictions are observed?

Or have they been strangely quiet about their predictions?
 
Sol88 said:
Very much so!! It's still very debatable whether he's work has credence or not, pity he was denied the telescope time to prove it either way!
Click to expand...
There are a couple of problems with this statement:
  1. "denied the telescope time" needs a citation, e.g. where does he state this on his web site and what evidence does he provide to prove it.
  2. He does not need telescope time since there is plenty of data publicly available.
  3. His evidence so far is 6 or 7 of examples of cherry picked data. If he continues in this fashon we will just have more cherry picked examples. His theory needs to be proved using statistics, i.e. samples not examples.
The major flaw in his methodolgy is point 3 - he has a list of examples.
A proper methodolgy would be to compare the statistics for the position of QSO's wrt to AGN galaxies to the statistics for the position of QSO's wrt to non-AGN galaxies (e.g. dwarf galaxies).
(see Arp objects, QSO's and Statistics for the bad statistics used by his proponents in this forum).

Another flaw is that he has no viable mechanism for the ejection of QSO's from AGN galaxies, e.g. see the Hoyle-Narlikar Theory thread.
 
In1983 Caltech denied him access to the telescope, which was to dump his research as dead weight, although it was the continuation of the research on which he built his high scientific standing! Arp concluded that he was Nonperson and resigned.
Click to expand...
w.whither-progress.org/pages/copernicus.php

Because Arp’s conclusion “ran counter to accepted dogma and profaned a holy name—the sacrosanct Hubble red shift—Arp was petitioned to discontinue this line of study and recant his heretical views. When Arp refused on grounds of conscience, he was branded a recidivist and exiled beyond the cloistered pale of academia” (Jueneman 1990a, p. 45). That this criticism is voiced in mainline scientific journals such as Science and Nature indicates the level of concern over the repercussions that result from criticizing certain aspects of the Big Bang idea.
Click to expand...
w.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v2/n1/history-intolerance-in-cosmology

Recently mainstream astronomers have joyfully announced that they can find no quantization effects in the observed redshift values of quasars. Of course not! The raw measured total redshift values of the universal set of all known quasars are not quantized. It is the inherent redshift z values that are!

Instead of nominating him for a prize (and simultaneously reexamining their assumption that "redshift equals distance"), Arp was (and continues to be) systematically denied publication of his results and refused telescope time. One would at least expect the "powers that be" to immediately turn the Chandra X-ray orbiting telescope, the Hubble space telescope, and all the big land based telescopes toward Arp's exciting discoveries in order to either confirm or disprove them once and for all. Instead, these objects have been completely excluded from examination. Official photographs are routinely cropped to exclude them. Those familiar with the Galileo story will remember the priests who refused to look through his telescope.
Click to expand...
ww.electric-cosmos.org/arp.htm

And from todays TPOD ww.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2009/arch09/090324abell.htm

But accumulating anomalies undermined Arp’s instinctive thought:

*

Abell clusters have few normal galaxies. Most cluster galaxies are peculiar or distorted; many are “just star piles.”
*

They tend to group around nearby active galaxies—just as Quasi-stellar Objects (QSO) do.
*

Plus, they tend to occur in lines.
*

Plus, the lines are the same ones marked out by QSOs and jets.
*

Plus, the clusters are often paired across the nearby active galaxy with similar redshift values on each side—again just like QSOs.
*

Cluster galaxies display no Hubble relationship. The redshift-apparent magnitude relation for normal galaxies is the basis for claiming a redshift-distance relation and hence an expanding universe. The expected dispersion is about 0.1 magnitude in brightness and 50 km/sec in Doppler-interpreted redshift. Abell clusters show up to 4 magnitudes of variation in brightness (corresponding to a variation in luminosity among member galaxies of 40 times) and up to 30,000 km/sec in velocities (requiring them either to be exploding instead of merging or to be stretched out over billions of light-years into Fingers of God pointing at the Earth).
*

The x-ray radiation patterns around them show elongations toward and bridges to nearby active galaxies.
*

If the arcs were gravitationally lensed background QSOs, their numbers should increase with fainter magnitude. Instead, the numbers level off. A survey of the lensed objects in this cluster whose redshifts have been measured shows that most fall within redshifts of 1.0 to 3.5, with a maximum at 2.5. Only a handful fall around 5.0
Click to expand...

So unfortunately it's not cut and dry, and the man has a point!
 
I came up with a list of serious problems.

Perhaps the worst one is that it requires the Milky Way to be the centre of the universe.

Or do you think it is not?
Click to expand...

The 'ol fingers of god thingy?
Fingers of God in an Expanding Universe

It is truly remarkable that authoritative astronomerse and physicists can measure galaxies in a well defined cluster and accept without question that some of the members are 1,000 Mpc from other members (that is, over 3,000,000,000 light years distant from other members).

What do they think this cluster is? In fact they are forced to say it is a structure that I would compare to a great sausage stretching out from us toward the outer reaches of the Universe. The miraculous aspect is that this sausage is pointing directly at us, the observer.

But perhaps an even stranger aspect is that the far end would be receding from us at an appreciable fraction of the speed of light. Quick, the mustard!
Click to expand...
li nk w.haltonarp.com/articles/fingers_of_god_in_an_expanding_universe

That's a mainstream problem of no concern to the EU/PC paradigm.

And please explain
Oh, and it also violates the second law of thermodynamics ... a consequence of which is that plasma physics is complete garbage (so there could be no "Universal, Cosmic and Solar Birkeland currents everywhere", for example).
Click to expand...
How so?
 
In any case, are Type Ia supernovae (SNe) standard candles, in PC?
Click to expand...

No

See this story
NASA's Hubble Space Telescope has identified a star a million times brighter than the sun that exploded as a supernova in 2005 — well before it should have, according to current theories of stellar evolution.

The doomed star, estimated at about 100 times our sun's mass, was not mature enough, according to theory, to have evolved a massive iron core of nuclear fusion ash. This is the supposed prerequisite for a core implosion that triggers a supernova blast.

"This might mean that we are fundamentally wrong about the evolution of massive stars, and that theories need revising," says Avishay Gal-Yam of the Weizmann Institute of Science, in Rehovot, Israel. The finding appears in the online version of Nature Magazine.

The explosion, called supernova SN 2005gl, was seen in the barred-spiral galaxy NGC 266 on October 5, 2005. NGC 266 is about 200 million light years away, in the constellation
Click to expand...
/hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/2009/13/full/
 
But do these Birkeland currents - if they exist - "radiate at microwave frequencies"?

After all, if they don't, then there would be no "perfect "fog" of microwave energy", would there?

In any case, more assumptions, so case closed (per Sol88 logic).
Click to expand...

But do these Birkeland currents - if they exist, you are joking right? Do you think they do not exist? Because I think you may be a little confused there sunshine :)

It had taken 65 years to confirm Birkeland's original predictions.

In 2007, NASA's THEMIS (Time History of Events and Macroscale Interactions during Substorms) project "found evidence of magnetic ropes connecting Earth's upper atmosphere directly to the sun," [9] [10] noting "that solar wind particles flow in along these ropes, providing energy for geomagnetic storms and auroras," thus reconfirming Birkeland's model of solar-terrestrial electrical interaction. NASA also likened the interaction to a "30 kiloVolt battery in space," noting the "flux rope pumps 650,000 Amp current into the Arctic!"[11]
Click to expand...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birkeland_current

65 years wow!!! no wonder mainstream is so passe. That is pure unadulterated EU right there my friend, and queses what it can be scaled!!!

please take the time to look at the picture
300px-FluxRopes%28BatteryInSpace%29.jpg


What do you notice? What are the similarities between the EU/PC line that some people here have been banging on about and the STANDARD MAINSTREAM explanation?

Seems 'ol mate MM in the Lambda-CDM thread is speaking with some truth!

It seems clear that neither Birkeland nor MM would agree with you, concerning the Sun and Earth being connected by "Birkeland currents electrical transmission lines".

Are you saying that both Birkeland and MM are wrong?
Click to expand...

No my delusional friend seems you maybe though. :)

would you care to retract that statement? or better still offer us a mainstream explanation on just what constitutes a 30 kiloVolt battery in space. Care to have a go? I'd be interested to hear your non EU/PC explanation.

On the other forum I used to enjoy posting at, the the standard answer was we are not here to defend the mainstream theory just shoot hole in yours, so it was always one sided. As that is not a rule on this forum, perhaps you'd care to give it a go?
 
Last edited:
Sol88 said:
[...]
Because Arp’s conclusion “ran counter to accepted dogma and profaned a holy name—the sacrosanct Hubble red shift—Arp was petitioned to discontinue this line of study and recant his heretical views. When Arp refused on grounds of conscience, he was branded a recidivist and exiled beyond the cloistered pale of academia” (Jueneman 1990a, p. 45). That this criticism is voiced in mainline scientific journals such as Science and Nature indicates the level of concern over the repercussions that result from criticizing certain aspects of the Big Bang idea.
Click to expand...
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v2/n1/history-intolerance-in-cosmology
Click to expand...
(full URL restored)

I think you'll have to do better than that ...

I've not read this Jueneman 1990a article (I'm not even sure anyone keeps back copies of R&D Magazine), so I at least can't comment on the quote (for now).

However, the second part of your quote seems to be a very crude debating tactic ... conflating two quite different ideas.

But perhaps not; in which issues of Science and Nature were articles on Arp being denied telescope time because of his "challenge [to] the fundamental assumption of modern cosmology, that redshift is a uniform indicator of distance" published? Remember, that was your claim, and you are attempting to provide evidence in support of it^.

Recently mainstream astronomers have joyfully announced that they can find no quantization effects in the observed redshift values of quasars. Of course not! The raw measured total redshift values of the universal set of all known quasars are not quantized. It is the inherent redshift z values that are!

Instead of nominating him for a prize (and simultaneously reexamining their assumption that "redshift equals distance"), Arp was (and continues to be) systematically denied publication of his results and refused telescope time. One would at least expect the "powers that be" to immediately turn the Chandra X-ray orbiting telescope, the Hubble space telescope, and all the big land based telescopes toward Arp's exciting discoveries in order to either confirm or disprove them once and for all. Instead, these objects have been completely excluded from examination. Official photographs are routinely cropped to exclude them. Those familiar with the Galileo story will remember the priests who refused to look through his telescope.
Click to expand...
http://www.electric-cosmos.org/arp.htm
Click to expand...
(full URL restored)(bold added)

Let's see now ... ADS turns up 123 entries for Arp (Halton C. Arp, that is) as author, for the period 1990 to 2008.

Quite a few of these entries are papers published in journals such as ApJ, A&A, PASP, Science, Nature, ... There's even one published in 2006, entitled "A QSO Discovered at the Redshift of the Extended X-Ray Cluster RX J0152.7-1357".

Your second post, Sol88, includes this quote (from where?):
His landmark compilation of peculiar galaxies led him to challenge the fundamental assumption of modern cosmology
Click to expand...
So, may one infer that it is objects in this "landmark compilation of peculiar galaxies" that "have been completely excluded from examination" (by "the Chandra X-ray orbiting telescope, the Hubble space telescope, and all the big land based telescopes")?

I'd really like you to answer this, Sol88, because then anyone can, objectively and independently, do some quick research to falsify your claim.

In any case, how does the existence of "quantized redshifts" in quasars (assuming such a thing, for the moment) challenge the Hubble relationship?

Oh, and given that (all?) the observations of (all?) quasars with measured redshifts have been published and are available, online, for free, why does Arp (or anyone) need telescope time to do an analysis to show that these quantizations are real? I mean, you, Sol88, could download the data and do the analysis, couldn't you?

For avoidance of doubt, that last question was not rhetorical ... I do hope you'll answer it.

And from todays TPOD ww.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2009/arch09/090324abell.htm
But accumulating anomalies undermined Arp’s instinctive thought:

*

Abell clusters have few normal galaxies. Most cluster galaxies are peculiar or distorted; many are “just star piles.”
*

They tend to group around nearby active galaxies—just as Quasi-stellar Objects (QSO) do.
*

Plus, they tend to occur in lines.
*

Plus, the lines are the same ones marked out by QSOs and jets.
*

Plus, the clusters are often paired across the nearby active galaxy with similar redshift values on each side—again just like QSOs.
*

Cluster galaxies display no Hubble relationship. The redshift-apparent magnitude relation for normal galaxies is the basis for claiming a redshift-distance relation and hence an expanding universe. The expected dispersion is about 0.1 magnitude in brightness and 50 km/sec in Doppler-interpreted redshift. Abell clusters show up to 4 magnitudes of variation in brightness (corresponding to a variation in luminosity among member galaxies of 40 times) and up to 30,000 km/sec in velocities (requiring them either to be exploding instead of merging or to be stretched out over billions of light-years into Fingers of God pointing at the Earth).
*

The x-ray radiation patterns around them show elongations toward and bridges to nearby active galaxies.
*

If the arcs were gravitationally lensed background QSOs, their numbers should increase with fainter magnitude. Instead, the numbers level off. A survey of the lensed objects in this cluster whose redshifts have been measured shows that most fall within redshifts of 1.0 to 3.5, with a maximum at 2.5. Only a handful fall around 5.0
Click to expand...

So unfortunately it's not cut and dry, and the man has a point!
Click to expand...
So here's an idea Sol88 ...

... why don't you get together with some folk over at TPOD, download the relevant data (remember, most of it is free, and freely available), develop some hypotheses, do some analyses, write up your results, and get them published?

I mean, that's what Arp's been doing for several decades now.

On the other hand, if the core of your claim is essentially that there is a conspiracy to hide, suppress, etc even the data obtained in surveys such as SDSS and by facilities such as Chandra and the HST, then please have the honesty to say so, directly and openly. We can then focus on the key point of your claims and not waste lots of time going over stuff that is contained earlier in this thread (and in many other threads here).

Sound like a plan?

^ I hope; if you've read at least the first half of this thread you'll know that Z was a master at making claims - at times quite outrageous claims - and then ignoring all comments or questions on them ... he earned himself some very uncomplimentary names for this behaviour.
 
Last edited:
Sol88 said:
DeiRenDopa said:
I came up with a list of serious problems.

Perhaps the worst one is that it requires the Milky Way to be the centre of the universe.

Or do you think it is not?
Click to expand...
The 'ol fingers of god thingy?
Fingers of God in an Expanding Universe

It is truly remarkable that authoritative astronomerse and physicists can measure galaxies in a well defined cluster and accept without question that some of the members are 1,000 Mpc from other members (that is, over 3,000,000,000 light years distant from other members).

What do they think this cluster is? In fact they are forced to say it is a structure that I would compare to a great sausage stretching out from us toward the outer reaches of the Universe. The miraculous aspect is that this sausage is pointing directly at us, the observer.

But perhaps an even stranger aspect is that the far end would be receding from us at an appreciable fraction of the speed of light. Quick, the mustard!
Click to expand...
li nk http://www.haltonarp.com/articles/fingers_of_god_in_an_expanding_universe
Click to expand...
Nice doge Sol88.

I asked you if you thought the Milky Way was the centre of the universe, because that is (it seems to me) an implication of the point you made in your post (about assuming the "Arp law").

Instead of answering that question - I also note that you did not say what this "Arp law" is - you changed the topic, and introduced "Fingers of God".

To say that you are disingenuous is surely an understatement; your source - something by Arp apparently - clearly states that the object being discussed is "The Shapley Supercluster"! Note, it's not a cluster (of galaxies), it's a supercluster (i.e. a cluster of clusters).

It gets worse.

Earlier I suggested that you read material already posted, in this thread and in others here; it seems that you have ignored my suggestion ... because if you had, you'd have easily found material on this very topic!

That's a mainstream problem of no concern to the EU/PC paradigm.
Click to expand...
OK, so you say.

Then you'll have no difficulty explaining the observed patterns in redshift space, will you? Please go ahead ...

And please explain
Oh, and it also violates the second law of thermodynamics ... a consequence of which is that plasma physics is complete garbage (so there could be no "Universal, Cosmic and Solar Birkeland currents everywhere", for example).
Click to expand...
How so?
Click to expand...
Sure, I'll go over it in a later post.

Which of the three parts are you most interested in?

A) The consequence that the second law of thermodynamics would be violated?

B) that plasma physics would be garbage if the second law of thermodynamics were violated?

C) that if plasma physics were garbage there'd be no giant Birkeland currents in the sky?

I will address all three, but which is of most interest to you?
 
Sol88 said:
DeiRenDopa said:
In any case, are Type Ia supernovae (SNe) standard candles, in PC?
Click to expand...
No

See this story
NASA's Hubble Space Telescope has identified a star a million times brighter than the sun that exploded as a supernova in 2005 — well before it should have, according to current theories of stellar evolution.

The doomed star, estimated at about 100 times our sun's mass, was not mature enough, according to theory, to have evolved a massive iron core of nuclear fusion ash. This is the supposed prerequisite for a core implosion that triggers a supernova blast.

"This might mean that we are fundamentally wrong about the evolution of massive stars, and that theories need revising," says Avishay Gal-Yam of the Weizmann Institute of Science, in Rehovot, Israel. The finding appears in the online version of Nature Magazine.

The explosion, called supernova SN 2005gl, was seen in the barred-spiral galaxy NGC 266 on October 5, 2005. NGC 266 is about 200 million light years away, in the constellation
Click to expand...
http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/2009/13/full/
Click to expand...
(URL restored)

Now I'm quite confused ... I do hope you can sort me out Sol88.

First, I asked about Type Ia SNe ... and you introduced material about a supernova that is not a Ia SNe.

Next, I asked you about whether these SNe are standard candles in PC ... and you referenced a PR on hubblesite.

So, are SNe Ia standard candles in PC or not?

Well, you say "No"; OK, so what are SNe Ia in PC?

Further, I also asked you about several other methods that astronomers use to estimate (extra-galactic) distances (Cepheids, the T-F relation; there are quite a few others that I didn't mention) ... and you didn't mention them.

Why not?

In PC, are these methods used to estimate extra-galactic distances?

Finally, I gave a link to a landmark HKP (Hubble Key Project) paper, on the determination of H0, and asked you how the team were able to make a consistent estimate of H0 if there were no relationship between distance and redshift (over extra-galactic distances). You didn't answer that question.

Why not?
 
Sure, why don't I try and answer that
Finally, I gave a link to a landmark HKP (Hubble Key Project) paper, on the determination of H0, and asked you how the team were able to make a consistent estimate of H0 if there were no relationship between distance and redshift (over extra-galactic distances). You didn't answer that question.

Why not?
Click to expand...

If you'll have a crack at this
or better still offer us a mainstream explanation on just what constitutes a 30 kiloVolt battery in space. Care to have a go? I'd be interested to hear your non EU/PC explanation.
Click to expand...

Fair?
 
plus you did not answer my question here
But do these Birkeland currents - if they exist,
Click to expand...

This one is very simple, I'll rephrase so as to be unambiguous

Do you, DeiRenDopa believe, in Birkeland currents? A simple yes or no would do.
 
Last one for now ...
Sol88 said:
DeiRenDopa said:
But do these Birkeland currents - if they exist - "radiate at microwave frequencies"?

After all, if they don't, then there would be no "perfect "fog" of microwave energy", would there?

In any case, more assumptions, so case closed (per Sol88 logic).
Click to expand...
But do these Birkeland currents - if they exist, you are joking right? Do you think they do not exist? Because I think you may be a little confused there sunshine :)
It had taken 65 years to confirm Birkeland's original predictions.

In 2007, NASA's THEMIS (Time History of Events and Macroscale Interactions during Substorms) project "found evidence of magnetic ropes connecting Earth's upper atmosphere directly to the sun," [9] [10] noting "that solar wind particles flow in along these ropes, providing energy for geomagnetic storms and auroras," thus reconfirming Birkeland's model of solar-terrestrial electrical interaction. NASA also likened the interaction to a "30 kiloVolt battery in space," noting the "flux rope pumps 650,000 Amp current into the Arctic!"[11]
Click to expand...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birkeland_current

65 years wow!!! no wonder mainstream is so passe. That is pure unadulterated EU right there my friend, and queses what it can be scaled!!!

please take the time to look at the picture [qimg]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/0/02/FluxRopes%28BatteryInSpace%29.jpg/300px-FluxRopes%28BatteryInSpace%29.jpg[/qimg]

What do you notice? What are the similarities between the EU/PC line that some people here have been banging on about and the STANDARD MAINSTREAM explanation?

Seems 'ol mate MM in the Lambda-CDM thread is speaking with some truth!
Click to expand...
(URL restored)

You seem, per an early post of yours, to have some problems with someone called tusenfem.

Well, there is a member with that name here, in the JREF Forum, and he has commented on that THEMIS PR several times: here, here, here, here, here, and here. Interestingly, the last three are in this very thread (you see, this PR has been put into play - and adequately addressed - before).

An extract from just one of those will do (for now at least):

MM: The "flux" is also known as "current flow". The magnetic rope described and shown by Themis carries powerful electrical currents between the sun and the Earth. [pretty much what you are claiming, Sol88, right?]

tusenfem: Flux is NOT current flow. Flux is the integral of B over a surface: \int B.dS, which has the units Tesla m2, and with a Tesla being Volt second per square meter, flux has the unit Volt second. "Current flow" has the unit of Amperes, which are coulombs per second, which is Farad Volt per second and then I get stuck trying to get to flux, sorry.

The magnetic rope most definitely carries a lot of current, however, it is no longer connected to the sun, that is just rediculous and no such thing is claimed in the paper. A magnetic rope NEEDS current to exist.

(He has also said that the Wikipedia entry on Birkeland currents is wrong, and that he will be working to get it fixed).

It seems clear that neither Birkeland nor MM would agree with you, concerning the Sun and Earth being connected by "Birkeland currents electrical transmission lines".

Are you saying that both Birkeland and MM are wrong?
Click to expand...

No my delusional friend seems you maybe though. :)

would you care to retract that statement? or better still offer us a mainstream explanation on just what constitutes a 30 kiloVolt battery in space. Care to have a go? I'd be interested to hear your non EU/PC explanation.

On the other forum I used to enjoy posting at, the the standard answer was we are not here to defend the mainstream theory just shoot hole in yours, so it was always one sided. As that is not a rule on this forum, perhaps you'd care to give it a go?
Click to expand...
(bold added)

I'll go one better: would you care to show, by reference to the appropriate sections of the 994-page Birkeland document, that Birkeland claimed that the Sun and Earth are connected by "Birkeland currents electrical transmission lines".

It's a simple request, and since you are (apparently) familiar with Birkeland's work, should be relatively easy to carry out ... goodness, you could start with the digitised version of the document (available from MM's website) and use the Search tool to find all places in it where the word string "connected by Birkeland currents electrical transmission lines" occurs.

With regard to MM: using this forum's advanced search, you can do the same thing, and find all the posts - in this forum, by MM - which contain that word string (or ones like it). Ditto for his own website (using Google).

Now I did all of the above, and all my searches came back with null (i.e. no such word strings are to be found, in any of the sources) ... but perhaps you will have better luck.

But then maybe you didn't understand what you yourself wrote? Maybe you meant to say something quite different than what you wrote?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom