Plasma Cosmology - Woo or not

Zeuzzz said:

... snip ...


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

Click to expand...

So perhaps I can expect that you'll actually read the posts I wrote on this, waaaay back in this thread?

And that you might, one day, get around to addressing the content of those posts??

And you have to actually say why the angular power spectrum of the CMB is important and disproves PC, lack of explanation over one specific componet does not falsify the theory.

... snip ...

Click to expand...

Dude,

You want to keep working on Lerner's model, until you get an angular power spectrum for his CMB (as well as a dipole, the SZE, polarisation footprints, temperature in high-z clouds, ...)?

Be my guest!

But thanks again; I hadn't quite appreciated that you, if not 'plasma cosmologists', have a radically different approach to how science is done (besides the aspects I've already pointed out). I guess it's a natural corollary to the 'inconsistencies don't matter' aspect.

Now since you brought it up, and since it's these foundational (or meta-) aspects I'm more interested in, may I ask how you approach the following?

Suppose someone develops an idea that the CMB is the work of garden gnomes (we don't need to consider the details here). Further suppose they write it up, and get it published in some peer-reviewed journal or other. This particular idea doesn't connect with anything else in astrophysics, and maybe any competent physics grad student could shoot it down in an hour (or maybe not). The idea, as presented, 'explains' only a very small subset of the full range of relevant 'CMB' observations. The author of the idea does not develop it any further, for whatever reason.

Do I understand correctly that in your view of how science works the lack of any paper 'falsifying' this idea is all that's needed to regard it as a viable alternative to ΛCDM cosmological models? You may assume, for the sake of this hypothetical, that those models are fully consistent with the full range of 'CMB' observations.

Back to "fuel sources", 'electric stars', and so on.

I'm not going to quote from old posts (mostly Zeuzzz'); if any reader wants the details of how the conversation got to this point, just ask (and I'll spend an hour or so reconstructing it).

Start with what I hope is a clear scope - stars.

Continue with clearly narrowing that scope, temporarily (i.e. I'll come back to discuss the temporary out of scope items later): exclude supernovae and systems of interacting binaries (a.k.a., or including, contact binaries, close binaries, and inspirals); also exclude GRBs and hypernovae (just in case they are not already excluded as supernovae), and also exclude black holes. Arbitrarily set the lower mass boundary for 'stars' as 0.1 sol (again, temporarily; this is mostly to avoid essentially irrelevant consideration of any planet/star distinction).

Rather than make an assumption, I'll ask Zeuzzz, BAC, robinson, and any other member who feels it is relevant: can we accept that a 'star', in this restricted sense, is an object which is in hydrostatic equilibrium (suitably defined to include pulsating stars), over periods of at least tens of years? If not, why not? If you don't know what 'hydrostatic equilibrium' means, just ask.

DeiRenDopa said:

... snip ...

Now what, pray tell, does this have to do with the question I asked?!?

Let's review the origin, shall we?

Zeuzzz: "Observations of stars that seemingly disprove current nuclear theories seem interesting. And these events are better explained with the electric star interpretaion of the hertzsprung russell diagram [...] And there are many more variable stars like this that are extremely hard to explain with traditional nuclear models, and seem to be exactly what you would expect from Alfvens star model and his supernova model."

DeiRenDopa: "What is this "the electric star interpretaion" [sic]? Where has it been published?

And what are these models? Where have they been published?"

So let's be really charitable this time, and assume Zeuzzz simply pressed the wrong button ... because neither of those references has anything whatsoever to do with "Alfvens star model and his supernova model", nor anything to do with stars being powered by electric currents.

So perhaps my questions were too imprecise ... how about this:

In which publications (papers) can one read "the electric star interpretaion of the hertzsprung russell diagram"? I googled, but found only debunking (yes, on the BAUT forum!) and crackpot websites.

And this: In which publications (papers) can one read exactly how "Alfvens star model and his supernova model" explains the behaviour of all variable stars? I googled, but found only crackpot websites (and lots of material that has nothing to do with any "Alfven star model" or "Alfven supernova model").

... snip ...

Click to expand...

Bump.

You may have overlooked this Zeuzzz, or thought you'd covered it somehow otherwise.

Here are the questions again, with some commentary:

Q: In which publications (papers) can one read "the electric star interpretaion of the hertzsprung russell diagram"?

Comment: the paper(s) should explicitly discuss the HR diagram, and quantitatively address the observed colours, luminosities, and masses, by a direct derivation of these observables from the 'electric star' model (or theory, or ...).

If there are no such papers, to your knowledge, please say so.

Q: In which publications (papers) can one read exactly how "Alfvens star model and his supernova model" explains the behaviour of all variable stars?

Comment: the paper(s) should explicitly discuss every class of variable listed in the AAVSO webpage(s) you linked to in your original post, derive the phenomenology of each class directly from "Alfvens star model and his supernova model", and show quantitative consistency.

If there are no such papers, to your knowledge, please say so.

Zeuzzz said:

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

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






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

Click to expand...

See, now that wasn’t so hard was it? You have now basically eliminated one of the proposed alternatives yourself or at least relegated it to an insignificant contributor. You’re on a roll so keep going. Take the “so to speak” models then apply them to that different place, the sun, and see if they can be a significantly contributing factor. You may find like the surface Z-pinch fusion model that there are inherent factors that would readily discount those models as well as observations that should readily support those models which we do not observe. Go luck, you have demonstrated that you do have the ability for critical thinking now you just have to apply it.

DeiRenDopa said:

Rather than make an assumption, I'll ask Zeuzzz, BAC, robinson, and any other member who feels it is relevant: can we accept that a 'star', in this restricted sense, is an object which is in hydrostatic equilibrium (suitably defined to include pulsating stars), over periods of at least tens of years? If not, why not? If you don't know what 'hydrostatic equilibrium' means, just ask.

Click to expand...

Why does ten years come into it? I'm not sure why you said that

assuming the energy and pressure is being generated in the core only, then yes, hydrostatic equilibrium would be unavoidable.

The Man said:

See, now that wasn’t so hard was it? You have now basically eliminated one of the proposed alternatives yourself or at least relegated it to an insignificant contributor. You’re on a roll so keep going. Take the “so to speak” models then apply them to that different place, the sun, and see if they can be a significantly contributing factor. You may find like the surface Z-pinch fusion model that there are inherent factors that would readily discount those models as well as observations that should readily support those models which we do not observe. Go luck, you have demonstrated that you do have the ability for critical thinking now you just have to apply it.

Click to expand...

I never endorsed a theory that said Z-pich fusion was the primary contributor and that stars are powered only from their surface. The Idea that any star could be powered entirely from their surface can be pretty much ruled out, that would just not work, the sun couldn't have the structure it does with the amount of mass it contains. I see no reason to discount Z-pinch fusion inside the sun however.

Zeuzzz said:

... snip ...

DeiRenDopa said:

Source please.

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

Try this for size:

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

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

Click to expand...

Just search the text, it will pop up, and I said in that post its from Lerner.

Click to expand...

Here, perhaps?

And commenting on them would be nice too, considering they are relevant to the subject at hand, and your responce widely was not...

... snip ...

Click to expand...

Sure, why not?

The general context is, lest any reader has forgotten, whether Plasma Cosmology is woo or not.

The specific context is the extreme tolerance of inconsistencies (of many different kinds) within the woolly collection of disparate ideas Zeuzzz has assured us comprise the supposedly coherent set of theories called Plasma Cosmology.

The specific example under discussion is how completely relaxed plasma cosmologists seem to be about the many kinds of inconsistency 'intrinsic redshifts', related to any class of object, generate.

Let's take just two specific inconsistencies, one with Lerner's own CMB idea, and one with Peratt's re quasars.

Recall that Lerner's CMB idea is that it is an isotropized and thermalized (I think those are the two words he used) reprocessing of starlight that originates as H to He conversion. Recall too that a key observational 'fact' he uses to support his idea is a certain correlation between IR and radio intrinsic luminosities, specifically of radio-loud quasars. Now that correlation as support for his idea turns to garbage if the quasars are no longer at distances implied by their redshifts!

Strangely, Lerner omits to include this potentially devastating corollary of accepting even one of the three papers he mentions.

Re Peratt and quasars.

Recall that central to Peratt's model is the estimated (radio) luminosity of the quasars. Now those luminosities assume the quasars are at distances implied by their redshifts; a corollary is that if they are not, then his account of quasar luminosities, with his model, turns to garbage.

In this case, let's give Peratt credit: it seems that in none of his papers does he countenance any 'intrinsic redshift' (except the reference to Tifft I hinted earlier).

(to be continued)

Reality Check said:

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

Click to expand...

Sorry for the unusual terminology. My definition of the concordance cosmology is the current popular front runner, Lambda-CDM.

My point of comparison is that it has a few problems as well, and while it might not be as shakey as Plasma Cosmology, we still have a long way to go before it is as concrete as I'm sure all of us would like.

Do any theories try to explain "why", or is it all just "how and when"?

Back on topic, looking at "Plasma Cosmology" and some other "debunked" theories, the worst offense, in the eyes of the BigBangers, seems to be "steady state", or any sort of theory that doesn't include a beginning to the Universe.

Which is pretty strange. Considering energy is neither created nor destroyed, that whole laws of physics thing, it seems the Universe has to be eternal. Otherwise some basic law of physics is being violated somehow.

How can that happen?

DeiRenDopa said:

Dude,

You want to keep working on Lerner's model, until you get an angular power spectrum for his CMB (as well as a dipole, the SZE, polarisation footprints, temperature in high-z clouds, ...)?

Be my guest!

Click to expand...

You know, if PC folks could nail down some of these specifics, they might be on to something.

For example, SZE observations have been unexpected, and contradictory. There is lots of speculation going on to try to get a handle on the unexpected and contradictory observations.

If the PC folks could come to the rescue, they would be hailed as minor heroes. Anyone would!

Anybody have any good ideas?

DeiRenDopa said:

Bump.

You may have overlooked this Zeuzzz, or thought you'd covered it somehow otherwise.

Here are the questions again, with some commentary:

Q: In which publications (papers) can one read "the electric star interpretaion of the hertzsprung russell diagram"?

Comment: the paper(s) should explicitly discuss the HR diagram, and quantitatively address the observed colours, luminosities, and masses, by a direct derivation of these observables from the 'electric star' model (or theory, or ...).

If there are no such papers, to your knowledge, please say so.

Q: In which publications (papers) can one read exactly how "Alfvens star model and his supernova model" explains the behaviour of all variable stars?

Comment: the paper(s) should explicitly discuss every class of variable listed in the AAVSO webpage(s) you linked to in your original post, derive the phenomenology of each class directly from "Alfvens star model and his supernova model", and show quantitative consistency.

If there are no such papers, to your knowledge, please say so.

Click to expand...

I already responded to this.

Zeuzzz said:

It implies that stars can have currents that travel towards them. And when this incoming current component increases substantially this is what causes the gain in energy and supernova explosions as the current density dramatically increases. Alfven proposed that a supernova is a star that recieves so many incoming particles in the electric circuit that the double layer on its surface becomes large enough to make the internal constituents of the star highly unstable due to the charge build up, essentially an exploding Double layer, and as Ziggurat and Sol stated elsewhere "Charges that high would make the star quite literally explode". Because the external circuit primarily drives the formation of the double layer, the supernova doesn't have to release the energy from an internal, or even a local source. Just like the weird explosion from no where that was detected, nothing there, but the electrical energy converged on this area and exploded; http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/071218-mysterious-explosion.html
Shock waves and heat are by-products of a phenomenon that is primarily electrical, and the recent "non-resonant instability" proposal by Bell and others seem to imply this electrical activity and extreme particle acceleration, from the exploding double layer in Alfvens model, is a very plausable mechanism for the acceleration of particles and generation of gamma rays we observe.

They have been published in:

*Double Layers in Astrophysics, Proceedings of a Workshop held in Huntsville
*Astrophysics and Space Science, vol. 54, no. 2
*Cosmic Plasma (much cited academic book written by aflven
*Astronomy and Astrophysics, v.376, p.288-291 (2001)
And more.....

[..]


But the various papers I posted above most certainly do propose electrical power as a new form of stellar energy other than nuclear or accretion, starting with the work of Wu et al, and all the other publications that have also expanded on the stars using electrical power idea, delivered from the external circuits that Alfven first proposed over fourty years ago now... Read the very first citation from the paper that proposes this electrcal power releasing mechanism. I'll save you the time its this, by Alfven, all the way back in 1963, and shows how ahead of his time he was since this electrical idea has only become widely accepted very recently; http://www.amazon.com/Cosmical-electrodynamics-Fundamental-principles-International/dp/B0007IT7TA

"The resistive dissipation in the white dwarfs is sufficient to power luminosities significantly above solar values; most power is dissipated at the hot spots on the surface of the magnetic white dwarfs, which are footpoints of the field lines connecting the two stars. Electrical power is therefore an alternative luminosity source, following on from nuclear fusion and accretion." (Kinwah Wu, 2001) http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0111/0111358v1.pdf

I could list the other papers based on this electrical unipolar inductor energy releasing mechansim from the ones I have already, but I'm getting very tired of doing this.

So perhaps my questions were too imprecise ... how about this:

In which publications (papers) can one read "the electric star interpretaion of the hertzsprung russell diagram"? I googled, but found only debunking (yes, on the BAUT forum!) and crackpot websites.

Click to expand...

In here; http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1981ASSL...82.....A

also gets a mention in this publication; http://www.springerlink.com/content/t8652n11506064u7/

And this one; The plasma Z-pinch morphology of supernova 1987A and the implications for supernova remnants

And also this one; http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ITPS...35..832T

And theres a few more I remember reading about in the Astronomical Journal, but I cant remember the names... I'll have another look if I can remember who published them...


http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ITPS...35..832T

...snip... In the electric star model, the important variable is the current density at the star's photosphere [represented by the x-axis in Fig. 9(a) and ].

To conform with the electrical engineering convention, the horizontal axis of the H–R diagram is reversed [Fig. 9]. Mathematically, we have the situation where the variable plotted on the horizontal axis (current density) is also the major factor in the quantity plotted on the vertical axis (luminosity).
As the current density increases, the discharge becomes hotter, changes color (from red, toward blue), and gets brighter.

In both models, the main sequence is a static scatter plot. In the standard model, stars evolve off the main sequence. However, when the enviroment of electric stars are disturbed, they will change position significantly and suddenly anywhere on the main sequence. Observationally, there are many examples of sudden changes in stellar spectral type and luminosity, that contradict the standard model and support the electrical model [......]

Click to expand...

And I listed just a couple of direct observations that disprove the curent nuclear interpretation of the spectra, and support the electrical interpretation. There are many, many more examples like this of these 'variable stars' that are better explained with the electrical interpretation, rather than the nuclear one based on million year cycles.

And this: In which publications (papers) can one read exactly how "Alfvens star model and his supernova model" explains the behaviour of all variable stars? I googled, but found only crackpot websites (and lots of material that has nothing to do with any "Alfven star model" or "Alfven supernova model").

Ah yes, silly me.

I'd forgotten that in the alternative science which PC relies upon the logic of false dichotomy is revered.

Click to expand...

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1987dla..conf..183S
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?1978Ap&SS..54..279A
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1981ASSL...82.....A
http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?1978Ap&SS..55..487A
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/n...T&data_type=HTML&format=&high=45cce9d73305181

Also elaborated on in this;
Trends in apparent time intervals between multiple supernovae occurrences



And i'm really sorry DRD, I must have missed your responce to my original point where I explained what the electrical interpretation of the HR diagram is, primarily due to the current density on the stars surface, and what advantages it has over the existing nuclear theory in explaing direct observations that contradict the current one. If you have a valid scienfitic reason to dismiss this, then please, post it, instead of writing the sort of posts above.

I also pointed out that the very person who invented the nuclear model himself, eddington, said "If there is no other way out we may have to suppose that bright line spectra in the stars are produced by electric discharges similar to those producing bright line spectra in a vacuum tube.."

Click to expand...

robinson said:

Which is pretty strange. Considering energy is neither created nor destroyed, that whole laws of physics thing, it seems the Universe has to be eternal. Otherwise some basic law of physics is being violated somehow.

How can that happen?

Click to expand...

You know, robinson, there are certain aspects of general relativity that aren't exactly compatible with the concept of conservation of energy, especially at large scales.

Peebles in his book "Principles of Physical Cosmology" brings this point up, and he is rather cavalier about the whole subject.

So, I think that objections to steady state cosmologies are for things other than conservation of energy, as general relativity may not allow energy conservation on cosmological scales anyhow.

I don't really care what GR says, based on reality, you don't get something for nothing, and neither matter nor energy can be destroyed, as far as all reality based evidence shows.

If somebody is suggesting you can create matter (or energy) from nothing, they are going to have to provide some evidence for that claim. Same for claiming that energy (or matter, they are the same thing), can vanish, become nothing.

At the most basic levels of reality, you have to take a stand somewhere. If matter/energy can come from nothing (woo woo!), then you just stepped into the Twilight Zone. Same for the other way round.

And now I am off topic. Sorry. I blame the pain killers. They are messing with my good nature.

[/lurk]
Um, the burden is on those who propose theoreis to find the evidence that backs their theory.

Others are not responsible for ruling out alternate theories. The people who propose them have the burden to find the evidence to support them.
[lurk]

robinson said:

Back on topic, looking at "Plasma Cosmology" and some other "debunked" theories, the worst offense, in the eyes of the BigBangers, seems to be "steady state", or any sort of theory that doesn't include a beginning to the Universe.

Which is pretty strange. Considering energy is neither created nor destroyed, that whole laws of physics thing, it seems the Universe has to be eternal. Otherwise some basic law of physics is being violated somehow.

How can that happen?

Click to expand...

Well that is a big question. (I won't fight with you , I hope. So I am not going to lurk your comment.)

The easiest explantion is that the energy does come from 'somewhere', it is just that 'somewhere' is beyond our current ability to ever get data about.

The big bang is a name, it is not the model, the model is a description of one possibility.

And so far it is a better approximation than the others, which can change.

But if is is the intersection of branes, inflationary recursion or the Great Crumb Snatchee dropping a bit of Lunch to the Floor of Existance, well we cant really know.

The vacum energy exists which is a clue, but maybe not.

The Vacum Energy Dust Bunnies are mysterious...

(Meddle not in the ways of wizards for they are soggy and hard to light.)

Dancing David said:

[/lurk]
Um, the burden is on those who propose theoreis[sic] to find the evidence that backs their theory.

Click to expand...

That brings up an interesting point.

Devil's Advocate: "While certain plasma theories are lacking observational evidence, partly due to the difficulty of observing certain things, partly due to the possibility they are just plain wrong, at least the engineers and physicist proposing plasma theory have both the laws of physics behind them as well as repeatable experiments to build on.

The crazy Cosmologist who invented Dark matter/Dark Energy/shock wave heating/gravitational clumping/accretion discs and all the other mysterious "gnomes" to shore up their theories, they don't have the same level of evidence to support them."



But seriously, how can anyone accept the "dark energy" crap that somebody made up to explain a huge problem with a theory?

I noticed in the "Extraordinary Claims" topic that nobody ever tried to argue that little jewel of woo woo thinking. Dark matter, sure, but nobody was dumb enough to take on Dark Energy.

But back to Plasma bashing.

The biggest problems I see with PC, is the associating with the Electric Sun crowd, as well as trying to deny the redshift theory.

I'm sure, as is often the case, reality is somewhere in the middle of the extremes. I know that somewhere out there, a very rational well respected Cosmologist has figured out the huge error that observational physics has made in the last thirty years. As well as realizing what Einstein objected to, when the Mathematics tools took over, and abandoned experiments, forging ahead with math instead of the old fashioned way of doing science. Making theory match reality, not the other way around.

Zeuzzz said:

DeiRenDopa said:

Bump.

You may have overlooked this Zeuzzz, or thought you'd covered it somehow otherwise.

Here are the questions again, with some commentary:

Q: In which publications (papers) can one read "the electric star interpretaion of the hertzsprung russell diagram"?

Comment: the paper(s) should explicitly discuss the HR diagram, and quantitatively address the observed colours, luminosities, and masses, by a direct derivation of these observables from the 'electric star' model (or theory, or ...).

If there are no such papers, to your knowledge, please say so.

Q: In which publications (papers) can one read exactly how "Alfvens star model and his supernova model" explains the behaviour of all variable stars?

Comment: the paper(s) should explicitly discuss every class of variable listed in the AAVSO webpage(s) you linked to in your original post, derive the phenomenology of each class directly from "Alfvens star model and his supernova model", and show quantitative consistency.

If there are no such papers, to your knowledge, please say so.

Click to expand...

I already responded to this.

Click to expand...

Oh, I see.

... or maybe not.

Apart from the extract from the Thornhill (?) material on SN1987A that you quoted, and what might be in the Alfvén tome (I don't have access to a copy), there seems no "explicit[] discuss[ion of] the HR diagram, and [any] quantitative [account of] the observed colours, luminosities, and masses, by a direct derivation of these observables from the 'electric star' model (or theory, or ...)".

Nor is there anything even remotely resembling "explicit[] discuss[ion of] every class of variable listed in the AAVSO webpage(s) you linked to in your original post, [and] deriv[ation of] the phenomenology of each class directly from "Alfvens star model and his supernova model", and show quantitative consistency" (again, with the possible exception of the Alfvén tome).

Would you please cite the specific sections, from one or more of the materials you referenced, where each of my questions are answered?

Again, if none of these materials addresses my questions (as further clarified by my comments), to your knowledge, please say so.

robinson said:

That brings up an interesting point.

Devil's Advocate: "While certain plasma theories are lacking observational evidence, partly due to the difficulty of observing certain things, partly due to the possibility they are just plain wrong, at least the engineers and physicist proposing plasma theory have both the laws of physics behind them as well as repeatable experiments to build on.

The crazy Cosmologist who invented Dark matter/Dark Energy/shock wave heating/gravitational clumping/accretion discs and all the other mysterious "gnomes" to shore up their theories, they don't have the same level of evidence to support them."



But seriously, how can anyone accept the "dark energy" crap that somebody made up to explain a huge problem with a theory?

I noticed in the "Extraordinary Claims" topic that nobody ever tried to argue that little jewel of woo woo thinking. Dark matter, sure, but nobody was dumb enough to take on Dark Energy.

Click to expand...

I must have missed that part (I did come to the party rather late, well after all the guests had gone home ...).

If I go pick over the scraps left, and revive the thread, can I count on you, robinson, to do your usual thing?

I mean, the 'Dark Energy story' is a fascinating one, quite different from the CDM one, but nonetheless full of misunderstandings, mis-representations, marketing fluff, and (no doubt) down-right falsehoods and worse.

But back to Plasma bashing.

The biggest problems I see with PC, is the associating with the Electric Sun crowd, as well as trying to deny the redshift theory.

... snip ...

Click to expand...

Cool!

But aren't you putting the cart somewhat before the horse?

Assuming by 'the redshift theory' you mean 'the Hubble relationship', then isn't it rather 'trying to account for the millions of relevant observations with a consistent model/theory/whatever'? With the rider of 'using a mechanism that has been observed in the lab, is self-consistent, and can be shown to be directly applicable to the relevant observations'?

Wangler said:

DeiRenDopa said:

Which is pretty strange. Considering energy is neither created nor destroyed, that whole laws of physics thing, it seems the Universe has to be eternal. Otherwise some basic law of physics is being violated somehow.

How can that happen?

Click to expand...

You know, if PC folks could nail down some of these specifics, they might be on to something.

For example, SZE observations have been unexpected, and contradictory. There is lots of speculation going on to try to get a handle on the unexpected and contradictory observations.

If the PC folks could come to the rescue, they would be hailed as minor heroes. Anyone would!

Anybody have any good ideas?

Click to expand...

(emphasis added)

It's certainly true that there have been some unexpected observations!

And a certain paper by Lieu (I think), which went through ~six drafts (several of them quite major) before it was published (that's pretty unusual), has gained a certain, shall we say, hero status in certain quarters.

But it's also true that as more rich clusters (and not so rich ones) are observed, in x-ray and microwave and radio wavebands, we are getting a much better handle on things like background contamination, how 'radio active' cluster galaxies may complicate interpretation of observations, and the extent to which the hot electrons in the rich cluster IGM have distributions that differ from what vanilla SZ models assume.

"If the PC folks could come to the rescue" ... aye; if any were to write a decent paper on the SZE, I'm sure it would be most interesting to read ...

DeiRenDopa said:

... can I count on you, robinson, to do your usual thing?

Click to expand...

I don't know. But I come across this sort of belief system that the red shift and Hubble's Law are bogus. I really haven't spent enough time delving into it, but for some reason some people (steady state crowd) really are against the whole expanding Universe thing, or explain it some other way, or challenge the entire red shift thing.

While I can imagine the really distant objects, the super energetic ones, that have these huge redshifts, I can imagine there is something going on, with relativity and the photons being created by electrons moving so fast they have a gravitational redshift, I just don't understand enough about it to have much of a say on that.

I'm much more fascinated by the more local Plasma events, the unknowns, and the more practical theories to explain these strange readings we get.

For example, the recent discoveries of huge plasma flows between young stars, as well as the energetic jets and shock waves and bubbles of plasma and all the cool looking stuff nearby.

I haven't found any papers or theory about it yet, but I suspect the answer to both dark matter and dark energy is going to be much simpler than an entirely new form of matter, that defies current laws of physics.

The simplistic belief that because we can't see it, it can't be there, is fast fading, based on the advanced platforms we have. The next generation of sensors, as well as vast supercomputers to process the data, is going to open up entire new worlds of knowledge.

I really don't care if current theory is wrong or right, I just want to know what is real. Reality is always more interesting than anything we imagine. Like the shift that occurred with quantum physics, our understanding of vast Cosmological events, and our Universe and it's history, is without a doubt, the coolest thing ever.




Well, except for falling in love, raising a child, and that sex stuff, but you know what I mean, Intellectually speaking, I find Cosmology way cool.

Catching up on a loose end ...

Zeuzzz said:

... snip ...

Also, It has been found that the broadening of spectral lines in an electric field, which is known as the "Stark effect," increases for hotter stars. This strongly supports an electrical interpretation of the H–R diagram, in which as the current density on the stars surface increases, the discharge becomes hotter, changes color (from red, toward blue), and gets brighter. The more significant is this relationship, the more closely will the plot approach a straight line, stars do not all fall precisely on a line, but have some dispersion above and below the line due to their variation in size. Its probably also worth noting that Eddington himself also acknowledged, "If there is no other way out we may have to suppose that bright line spectra in the stars are produced by electric discharges similar to those producing bright line spectra in a vacuum tube..."

... snip ...

Click to expand...

Zeuzzz has quoted and re-quoted this, in support of his assertions about "the electric star interpretaion"*.

Let's tackle this in more detail, while we wait for references to the actual papers that contain the full quantitative treatment ...

From any version of electric star interpretation/electrical interpretation/electrical model/Alfvén's model/whatever you choose Zeuzzz, what is current density of the Sun's surface?

What is the actual, observed current density?

In which paper(s) may we read analyses of high-resolution spectra of bright, blue stars, specifically the lines, based on detailed quantitative models incorporating the Stark effect, thermal broadening, gravitational broadening, and rotation (and any other relevant effects)? More specifically, in which papers are clear conclusions drawn concerning the strength of the Stark effect?

Oh, and by the way Zeuzzz, you haven't yet answered my question about whether this paragraph is plagiarised too ... (google is such a wonderful tool).

* note the dancing; in the same section of this post, Zeuzzz uses "the electric star interpretaion", "Alfvens star model and his supernova model", "the electrical model", as well as "an electrical interpretation". I bet if he were pressed, Zeuzzz would dance even more merrily.

Zeuzzz said:

DeiRenDopa said:

Rather than make an assumption, I'll ask Zeuzzz, BAC, robinson, and any other member who feels it is relevant: can we accept that a 'star', in this restricted sense, is an object which is in hydrostatic equilibrium (suitably defined to include pulsating stars), over periods of at least tens of years? If not, why not? If you don't know what 'hydrostatic equilibrium' means, just ask.

Click to expand...

Why does ten years come into it? I'm not sure why you said that

Click to expand...

It's a timeframe issue, and as such is pretty arbitrary ... as long as it's greater than ~twice the period of the longest period pulsating variable, AND not so long that we can't call upon the historical records to test anything we may come up with (so, for example, 10,000 years is too long).

assuming the energy and pressure is being generated in the core only, then yes, hydrostatic equilibrium would be unavoidable.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the caveat.

However, it's just this kind of getting-ahead-of-ourselves that I'm trying to avoid ... 'hydrostatic equilibrium' treats the object in question blindly, it knows nothing of what forces are operating, only that they are in balance (radially), throughout.

Would you like someone (doesn't have to be me) to walk you through this, in detail?

And how about you BAC? robinson?

Can you accept that a 'star', in this restricted sense*, is an object which is in hydrostatic equilibrium (suitably defined to include pulsating stars), over periods of at least tens of years?

If not, why not? If you don't know what 'hydrostatic equilibrium' means, just ask.

* see my earlier post for important clarifications.

robinson said:

Back on topic, looking at "Plasma Cosmology" and some other "debunked" theories, the worst offense, in the eyes of the BigBangers, seems to be "steady state", or any sort of theory that doesn't include a beginning to the Universe.

... snip ...

Click to expand...

DRD a 'BigBanger'? You are free to give me any label you wish, robinson ...

However, in my eyes, the worst 'PC offense' has nothing to do with any beginnings, or universes, gnomes, or electricity.

As I have said, quite a few times now, PC is woo because it fits 'the very definition of woo'; specifically, there is pretty clear evidence that it uses a paradigm quite different than that used by contemporary physics, astronomy, astrophysics (and, no doubt, biology, chemistry, economics, ...), it is an 'alternative science', if you will.

In a science forum, surely that is sufficient to show PC is woo, isn't it?

Zeuzzz said:

... snip ...

DeiRenDopa said:

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

Click to expand...

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

Click to expand...

Sigh.

Zeuzzz, that's a nice piece of fiction, a good bedtime story.

However, with the notable exception of Peratt (and, maybe, Alfvén), every 'plasma cosmologist' you've mentioned, to date, has been overjoyed (it seems) with Arpian 'intrinsic redshifts' ... despite the fact that

a) no mechanisms for any such were in any textbooks (or observable in any plasma physics labs) before Arp started with these publications, and

b) PC proponents are nothing if not vehement in their insistence on 'lab proof first!'

I mean, for goodness sake, despite the quite staggering amount of really, really, really solid experimental and observational support for General Relativity (GR), many (most? all??) PC proponent balk at interpreting the Hubble relationship within a model based on GR!

Which suggests to me another of the many inconsistencies in PC: simultaneous acceptance of the experimental and observational confirmation of GR and its rejection (when it is applied to cosmology) ... despite the billions of observations consistent with such application (i.e. the Hubble relationship).

So, Zeuzzz, do you mind if I ask you to stop being disingenuous?

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

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

Click to expand...

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

Click to expand...

Indeed ...

but I doubt that's why they have been so tested (or not the whole story anyway) ... if it were, we'd see PC proponents falling all over themselves to present proposals for funding of observations to test various 'intrinsic redshift' ideas in astronomy, or ...

Kinda odd though that we don't read much about the widespread failure of either idea, when it comes to serious astronomical scrutiny, isn't it?

Heres a few relevant to quasars and redshifts. I'm surprised you had not heard of CREIL, or the Wolf effect,

Click to expand...

You'd be surprised at what I have heard of ... and what I haven't (though I'm pretty sure robinson wouldn't)

so i'll provide a few links. And commenting on the above papers I quoted from Lerners website would be nice, or the heliospheric current circuit, or


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Click to expand...

All great stuff, no doubt (except the last, perhaps).

However, here are a few things the authors of the above seem to have missed*

1) are quasars/QSOs/BLacs/etc a homogeneous class of object? If so, then these mechanisms (for explaining 'intrinsic redshift') must apply to them all ... and if so, then a clear demonstration that even one such object is at a distance consistent with its redshift knocks out all these 'alternative' explanations.

2) there are now ~100 'lensed quasars' reported in the literature, and the numbers are growing almost daily; a consistent 'quasars have a large 'intrinsic redshift'' story needs to address these too (none of the 'intrinsic redshift' papers do, as far as I know).

3) in the last few years, galaxies with the same redshift as some of the 'lyman forest' lines in quasar spectra have been observed in close (on the sky) proximity to the quasars ... suggesting that the quasars are, in fact, more distant than the (high-z) galaxies whose halos give rise to the absorption lines in the quasar spectra (none of the 'intrinsic redshift' papers address these observations, as far as I know).

4) quite a few papers report observations of the 'host galaxy' of quasars, covering a wide range of redshifts and luminosities. As far as I know, all such papers report that the host galaxies are consistent with the 'unified AGN' model (and none of the 'intrinsic redshift' papers address these observations, as far as I know).

5) if quasars/QSOs/etc are a heterogenous class - some are at distances implied by their redshifts, others have a large 'intrinsic redshift' component (and are much closer than the distances implied by their redshifts) - you'd expect some discussion of how the two (or more) classes could be distinguished, by proponents of the 'intrinsic redshift' idea; there is no such discussion (as far as I know).

6) and so on (I think there are at least another three points I could make).

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

Click to expand...

I guess it depends on who's doing the looking, doesn't it?

My own reading of the literature suggests that most of the 'inconsistencies' you have cited are nothing of the kind ... nearly all the 'Arp et al.' work, for example, is simply bad statistics.

But at another level, I fully agree with you ... the stunning silence from all PC proponents on the implications of 'intrinsic redshift', to their very own theories and models, is an astonishing inconsistency ...

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

Click to expand...

I'll deal with this later ...

... for now I'll simply note that we are talking about Plasma Cosmology in this thread .... (and ask you who it was who refused to give a concise statement of what this actually is ...)


* I'm sure you'll quickly tell me if any do, to the contrary, actually deal with these ...

robinson said:

But seriously, how can anyone accept the "dark energy" crap that somebody made up to explain a huge problem with a theory?

Click to expand...

Care to offer an alternative theory for the apparent acceleration of the Universe's expansion?

robinson said:

Which is pretty strange. Considering energy is neither created nor destroyed, that whole laws of physics thing, it seems the Universe has to be eternal. Otherwise some basic law of physics is being violated somehow.

Click to expand...

I see. So since you, robinson, have difficulty understanding how energy can be conserved in an expanding universe, we should throw away the last century of data and trust some kind of hunch that it must somehow all be wrong?

Energy is conserved in general relativity. GR is the correct theory of gravity. GR DOES NOT ALLOW a steady state universe (with one exception which does not describe ours). GR REQUIRES a big bang if the universe is expanding. The observations show that the universe is expanding.

The laws of physics are satisfied in big bang models. Any theory that attempts to explain redshifts without expansion necessarily violates conservation of energy (not to mention logic). So you couldn't possibly be more wrong.

Nice.

robinson said:

I haven't found any papers or theory about it yet, but I suspect the answer to both dark matter and dark energy is going to be much simpler than an entirely new form of matter, that defies current laws of physics.

Click to expand...

Which laws do you think DM defies?

Zeuzzz said:

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

Click to expand...

Huh? How can anyone write a paper dismissing an alternative model for fusion in the Sun when there isn't an alternative model?

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

Click to expand...

Huh again! Fusion with magnetic confinement on Earth requires a Tokamak. Are you suggesting the Sun might already contain a fully functioning Tokamak?

Zeuzzz said:

The exact reasons I listed in this post, of being able to explain many stars that are a complete enigma to the nuclear model.

Observations of stars that seemingly disprove current nuclear theories seem interesting. And these events are better explained with the electric star interpretaion of the hertzsprung russell diagram, which has the distinct advantage in that it can explain many stars apparent sudden evolution, as electric stars may move suddenly anywhere on the main sequence if their electrical environment is disturbed. The nuclear model of stars says that it should take millions of years for stars to evolve through their various stages. Observationally, there are many examples of sudden changes in stellar spectral type and luminosity, which contradicts the standard model and supports the electrical model. Like star FG Sagittae which has changed from blue to yellow since 1955, the time of a human lifetime! Another is V838 Mon "It is a unique object in the sense that for this star we have direct evidence of stellar evolution but in a time scale comparable with the human lifetime."

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

This is nonesense. Many of the nuclear processes in stars vary with temperature at an astonishing rate. The triple-alpha rate, for example, varies as absolute temperature to the power of 30! Its thus hardly surprising that once stars start to contract and the temperature goes up, the spectral type changes is in a short time.

sol invictus said:

Energy is conserved in general relativity.

Click to expand...

There was a small thread about the conservation of energy here:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=113328

But I am still not sure if there was a final resolution.

Or, at least one that I understand.

It seems to me that the conservation of energy is not a well defined term in expanding universes.

Wangler said:

It seems to me that the conservation of energy is not a well defined term in expanding universes.

Click to expand...

I tried to explain it there. The confusion comes from infinite volume more than from the expansion. In GR energy is always conserved locally - the change in energy of some region equals the amount of energy flowing in (or out). But it's not obvious how to extend that to the entire universe, because no matter how big the volume you consider is, there is always energy flowing out.

In a finite expanding universe there is no problem - the energy of the universe is constant.

robinson said:

Back on topic, looking at "Plasma Cosmology" and some other "debunked" theories, the worst offense, in the eyes of the BigBangers, seems to be "steady state", or any sort of theory that doesn't include a beginning to the Universe.

Which is pretty strange. Considering energy is neither created nor destroyed, that whole laws of physics thing, it seems the Universe has to be eternal. Otherwise some basic law of physics is being violated somehow.

How can that happen? .

Click to expand...

sol invictus said:

I tried to explain it there. The confusion comes from infinite volume more than from the expansion. In GR energy is always conserved locally - the change in energy of some region equals the amount of energy flowing in (or out). But it's not obvious how to extend that to the entire universe, because no matter how big the volume you consider is, there is always energy flowing out.

In a finite expanding universe there is no problem - the energy of the universe is constant.

Click to expand...

Also relevant to robison’s question.

A BRIEF HISTORY OF TIME
Stephen W. Hawking

There are something like ten million million million million million million million million million million million million million million (1 with eighty zeroes after it) particles in the region of the universe that we can observe. Where did they all come from? The answer is that, in quantum theory, particles can be created out of energy in the form of particle/antiparticle parts. But that just raises the question of where the energy came from. The answer is that the total energy of the universe is exactly zero. The matter in the universe is made out of positive energy. However, the matter is all attracting itself by gravity. Two pieces of matter that are close to each other have less energy than the same two pieces a long way apart, because you have to expend energy to separate them against the gravitational force that is pulling them together. Thus in a sense, the gravitational field has negative energy. In the case of a universe that is approximately uniform in space, one can show that this negative gravitational energy exactly cancels the positive energy represented by the matter. So the total energy of the universe is zero.

Click to expand...

"Two pieces of matter that are close to each other have less energy than the same two pieces a long way apart, because you have to expend energy to separate them against the gravitational force that is pulling them together."

To say "matter has energy" or "matter has less energy" is sort of silly. Matter = energy.

Of course saying matter = energy, as in E=mc², goes against common sense, but there we are, describing the Universe with equations and formulas.

If matter can turn into energy, and energy creates matter, the whole thing just sounds all woo woo, yet quantum theory describes and predicts what we measure happening, which brings us back to trying to say "matter has more energy" is absurd as saying "energy has more matter". Or something like that.

But we have to say something. So we speak of "particles", which we know really are waves, because things interact in quanta, and we can't explain interactions with just waves, and at some point you either get all smug, depending on the maths to bolster your belief that you know what is going on, or maybe just shake your head and say, "How can that even be?", and turn on the TV, maybe watch some sports.

robinson said:

"Two pieces of matter that are close to each other have less energy than the same two pieces a long way apart, because you have to expend energy to separate them against the gravitational force that is pulling them together."

To say "matter has energy" or "matter has less energy" is sort of silly. Matter = energy.

Of course saying matter = energy, as in E=mc², goes against common sense, but there we are, describing the Universe with equations and formulas.

If matter can turn into energy, and energy creates matter, the whole thing just sounds all woo woo, yet quantum theory describes and predicts what we measure happening, which brings us back to trying to say "matter has more energy" is absurd as saying "energy has more matter". Or something like that.

But we have to say something. So we speak of "particles", which we know really are waves, because things interact in quanta, and we can't explain interactions with just waves, and at some point you either get all smug, depending on the maths to bolster your belief that you know what is going on, or maybe just shake your head and say, "How can that even be?", and turn on the TV, maybe watch some sports.

Click to expand...

The quote is talking about potential energy. That is not the energy of the matter. It is the energy it gets from a movement in the gravitational field.

robinson said:

Of course saying matter = energy, as in E=mc², goes against common sense, but there we are, describing the Universe with equations and formulas.

Click to expand...

Yeah - that's called "physics".

If matter can turn into energy, and energy creates matter, the whole thing just sounds all woo woo, yet quantum theory describes and predicts what we measure happening, which brings us back to trying to say "matter has more energy" is absurd as saying "energy has more matter". Or something like that.

Click to expand...

So you don't believe in nuclear power, radioactivity, or nuclear weapons?

Hawking is correct that the energy is exactly zero, although as I said there is a subtlety in the case of infinite universes. One interesting equation that describes that is called the Wheeler-de Witt equation.

I'm sure you meant the Wheeler-deWitt equation, that hypothetical vector of the Hilbert space, a functional of the metric tensor, describing a dimensional compact surface, which in our mathematical Universe, is the spacetime dimension, or more precisely, the path integral over all dimensional geometries, that have the required induced metric on their boundary.

See? Unlike that woo woo Plasma Cosmology, Physics is easy to understand, and doesn't rely on made up stuff. It is hard to understand why anyone would question it.

robinson said:

But seriously, how can anyone accept the "dark energy" crap that somebody made up to explain a huge problem with a theory?

Click to expand...

Because that's what science does: correct the theory when it doesn't quite fit.

Inventing a new form of energy is not the same as correcting a theory.

Well, in the real world that is. In the theoretical world where people just make stuff up, I guess some people think inventing an entire new form of energy, that has no relation to existing concepts of reality, some people imagine that is "correcting a theory".

Like when people imagined there was an invisible planet to explain the orbit of Mercury.

robison said:

"Two pieces of matter that are close to each other have less energy than the same two pieces a long way apart, because you have to expend energy to separate them against the gravitational force that is pulling them together."

To say "matter has energy" or "matter has less energy" is sort of silly. Matter = energy.

Click to expand...

So it would be silly to say one ice cube has less water then a smaller ice cube, since frozen water equals ice and saying water has less water is just silly. It only sounds silly if deliberately ignore the quantitative nature of the comparison.

robison said:

Of course saying matter = energy, as in E=mc2, goes against common sense, but there we are, describing the Universe with equations and formulas.

Click to expand...

What is common about “common sense”? So how would you prefer to describe the universe?

robison said:

If matter can turn into energy, and energy creates matter, the whole thing just sounds all woo woo, yet quantum theory describes and predicts what we measure happening, which brings us back to trying to say "matter has more energy" is absurd as saying "energy has more matter". Or something like that.

Click to expand...

No, actually it just sounds self–consistent and as you remark it “predicts what we measure happening” so it is also consistent with our observations.

robison said:

But we have to say something. So we speak of "particles", which we know really are waves, because things interact in quanta, and we can't explain interactions with just waves, and at some point you either get all smug, depending on the maths to bolster your belief that you know what is going on, or maybe just shake your head and say, "How can that even be?", and turn on the TV, maybe watch some sports.

Click to expand...

Or you could just apply some “common sense”, water is comprised of particles and interacts as particles yet those particles also move in waves. So interacting as particles and moving as waves is not uncommon and makes sense. Thankfuly some people had the common sense to work out “How that can be” so you can watch sports on your TV.