Plasma Cosmology - Woo or not

Ziggurat · Nov 23, 2010

Zeuzzz said:
Observational evidence favors a static universe
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010arXiv1009.0953C
Cosmology and Extragalactic Astrophysics, September 5, 2010.

Sorry, but that's a fail. ALL tired light theories require blurring, which is not observed.

There are major problems with the applicability of Newtons law of gravitation

Indeed. That's why it's been supplanted by General Relativity.

This law is the sole reason why cosmology/astronomy is filled with so many unresolved problems, most notably dark matter and dark energy.

Uh, no. While galactic rotation curves don't match Newtonian gravity either, gravitational lensing is definitely a general relativity effect.

There is no definitive law for gravity at all scales.

That's another way of saying general relativity is wrong, even though you have no evidence that it is.

Newtonian gravity is accurately measured and proven with the bounds of the solar system.

Actually, Newtonian gravity is proven wrong within the bounds of the solar system. General relativity is not Newtonian.

This formula has been used to determine the mass of the Earth, we don't even know the valid range for Newtonian gravity.

Oh, but we do.

To get the mass of another planet in our solar system you have to use the value used for the Earth or sun. And to work out the tremendously important value of G you then have to use M_EG, using the mass of the Earth, under the presumption it is correct, and then other methods using the suns mass are derived again from M_EG.

No, Zeuzzz. G is obtained independently from the mass of the earth, and the mass of every other large object in the solar system can be obtained from G without reference to M_E.

So when people say that a distant object in orbit is a certain mass and they thus know the gravitational forces involved etc, this is more an assumption than a fact, depending on the value of G and the mass of the sun or earth.

Quite wrong. The mass of the earth and the sun never enter into it. Really, this is an incredibly fundamental error on your part.

ben m · Nov 23, 2010

Zeuzzz said:
All they will let on there are old, dated, wrong publications that relate to Alfven.

Alfven, a Nobel prizewinner who made major contributions to interplanetary plasma physics, had a notable plasma-cosmology theory. The fact that it existed, and was eventually proven wrong, is notable.

Five or six non-notable amateur scientists and engineers, circularly citing one another's non-notable papers, and producing something that even you, Zeuzzz, just called "hogwash", is not notable.

Please note that mainstream Big Bang alternatives have perfectly good articles. MOND and TeVeS have perfectly normal Wiki pages. Mainstream results which have the potential to modify the Big Bang---like "dark flow"---have perfectly normal articles. Challenging oddities of the CMB data, like the "Axis of Evil", get an appropriate level of discussion in the CMB article.

Why is PC different than TeVeS? Unlike TeVeS, PC is it's not a science theory; it's four or five crackpots exchanging links and big-fish stories.

Zeuzzz · Nov 23, 2010

ben m said:
Alfven, a Nobel prizewinner who made major contributions to interplanetary plasma physics, had a notable plasma-cosmology theory. The fact that it existed, and was eventually proven wrong, is notable.

You think that his disproved theories are more notable than the current theories that, based on his work, have yet to be proven wrong in any sort of peer reviewed literature?

Five or six non-notable amateur scientists and engineers, circularly citing one another's non-notable papers

I dont usually make arguments from authority, but some of the contributors to plasma cosmology theories have rather impecable credentials. I'd wager much more impressive than anyone in this thread. You've made me play this card, shame on you.

http://plasmauniverse.info/downloads/IEEE.GuestEditorialDec03.pdf

Anthony L. Peratt (S’60–M’63–SM’85–F’99) Ph.D: EE, 1971, University of Southern California, Los Angeles. MSEE, USC, 1967; UCLA, 1963-1964, BSEE, California State Polytechnic University. Staff Member, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (1972-1979); Guest Physicist, Max Planck Institut für Plasmaphysik, Garching, Germany (1975–1977); Guest Scientist, Alfvén Laboratory, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden (1985); Los Alamos National Laboratory (1981–), Applied Theoretical Physics Division, Physics Division, Associate Laboratory Directorate for Experimental Programs;

Scientific Advisor to the United States Department of Energy (1995–1999). Dr. Peratt’s research interests have included numerical and experimental contributions to high-energy density plasmas and intense particle beams; inertial confinement fusion; explosively-driven pulsed power generators; lasers; intense-power-microwave sources; particles; high energy density phenomena, new concepts in space propulsion and high performance computing , plasma cosmogony and cosmology. He has served as session organizer for space plasmas, IEEE International Conf. on Plasma Science 1987–1989; Guest Editor Transactions on Plasma Science, special issues on Space Plasmas 1986, 89, 90, 92, 2000, 03; Organizer, IEEE International Workshops on Space Plasmas, 1989, 1991, 1993, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 2003; Associate Editor Transactions on Plasma Science 1989—; Elected member of IEEE Nuclear and Plasma Science Society (NPSS) Executive Committee (ExCom), 1987–1989; 1995– 1997; GENERAL CHAIRMAN, IEEE International Conference on Plasma Science, Santa Fe, New Mexico, 1994. IEEE NPSS ExCom Vice Chairman 1997; Elected to the IEEE NPSS Administrative Committee, 1997. He holds memberships in the American Physical Society, American Astronomical Society, Eta Kappa Nu and has earned the United States Department of Energy Distinguished Performance Award, 1987, 1999; IEEE Distinguished Lecturer Award, 1993; Norwegian Academy of Science and Letters, University of Oslo Physics Department, and Norsk Hydro Kristian Birkeland Lecturer, 1995. Dr. Peratt is Author, Physics of the Plasma Universe, Springer-Verlag (1992); Editor, Plasma Astrophysics and Cosmology, Kluwer Academic Publishers (1995); Editor, Advanced Topics in Space and Astrophysical Plasmas, Kluwer Academic Publishers (1997).

http://plasmauniverse.info/downloads/IEEE.GuestEditorialDec03.pdf

Carl-Gunne Fälthammar was born in Markaryd, Sweden, on December 4, 1931. He received the degrees of Civilingenjör (graduate engineer) in 1956, Tekn. lic (approximately the Ph.D.) in 1960, and Docent (approximately Assistant Professor) in 1966, from the Royal Institute of Technology (KTH), Stockholm, Sweden. In 1969, he was appointed Associate Professor of Plasma Physics at the Royal Institute of Technology. In 1975, he succeeded Hannes Alfvén as Professor of Plasma Physics. From July 1, 1967 to June 30, 1997, he was Chairman/Director of the Department of Plasma Physics at the Royal Institute of Technology, which, since 1990, is a Division of the Alfvén Laboratory. After retiring as Director he remains scientifically active as Professor Emeritus. His research interests include fundamental aspects of plasma electrodynamics, with application to space and astrophysical plasmas, especially in the context of auroral and magnetospheric physics.

Professor Fälthammar is author or Co-Author of more than a hundred scientific articles in space and plasma physics, Co-Author with H. Alfvén of the book Cosmical Electrodynamics, Fundamental Principles (English 1963, Russian 1967, Chinese 1974, Japanese 1978) and Co-Editor with B. Hultqvist of the book Magnetospheric Physics, Achievements and Prospects (1990) Professor Fälthammar has served in several international scientific organizations, including the Executive Committee of IAGA, the Space Science Committee of the European Science Foundation, the Council of the European Geophysical Society, and the Board of the European Physical Society Plasma Physics Division. He was Topical Editor of Annales Geophysicae 1991-1995. He is currently Associate Editor of Astrophysics and Space Science, and a Member of the Editorial Board of Space Science Reviews. Since 1975, Professor Fälthammar is a Full Member of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences. He is also a Full Member of International Academy ofm Astronautics, Academia Europaea and the European Academy of Arts, Sciences and Humanities. In 1989, he was awarded an Honorary Doctor’s degree by the Faculty of Science of the University of Oulu, Finland. He is also a recipient of the 199 Golden Badge Award of the European Geophysical Society, the 1996 Basic Sciences Award of the International Academy of Astronautics and the 1998 Hannes Alfvén Medal of the European Geophysical Society.

Tim Eastman was one of the reviewers of the last PC journal.

Dr. Timothy Eastman has joined the Raytheon/ITSS contractor team supporting NSSDC and SSDOO activities at Goddard. Tim assumes the leadership of Raytheon's space physics and astrophysics groups.

Tim has had a long career as a space physics researcher and is best known for his work on magnetospheric boundary layers and the initial discovery of the Low Latitude Boundary Layer. Among his past activities were collaborations with SSDOO scientists, especially Jim Green, Shing Fung, Mona Kessel and Scott Boardsen, on analysis of data from the Hawkeye spacecraft.

In addition, he has served as program director for space plasmas at both NASA/Headquarters and at the National Science Foundation. At NASA, he played a key role, with Stan Shawhan, in initiating the ISTP program and the Space Physics Division (now Sun Earth Connections).

In recent years, Tim has had his own consulting company whose work includes a web site "representing all aspects of plasma science and technology prepared as a service for the general public as well as for the educational and research communities."

Ex director of the geophysical institute Syun-Ichi Akasofu seems to be a new member who has produced numerous publications in the last couple of Transactions on plasma science for Peratt et al.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syun-Ichi_Akasofu

Then theres birkeland that was nominated for a nobel prize 7 times, Alfven of course who did win a nobel prize, Irving Langmuir who also won a nobel prize and pretty much created the foundation for plasma physics to be applied cosmologically, and this is now getting boring.

Please note that mainstream Big Bang alternatives have perfectly good articles.

Of course they do! If a theory as popular as the Big Bang did not have variants and offshoots to try to explain away its varying issues/falsifications then it would just be a full on dogmatic religion that ignores inconsistant data. They are allowed because they are predicated on BBT in the first place. Its like protestant and catholic.

Challenging oddities of the CMB data, like the "Axis of Evil", get an appropriate level of discussion in the CMB article.

Oddly the PC explanation that can fully account for this "anomaly" with ease would not be allowed to be put on wikipedia, as its not to do with the big bang theory. Weird really, the CMB does not belong to BBT, its just part of the EM spectrum with unique properties that have been assigned extremely significant meanings by BBT.

Why is PC different than TeVeS? Unlike TeVeS, PC is it's not a science theory; it's four or five crackpots exchanging links and big-fish stories.

Weird. For a crackpot Peratts "physics of the plasma universe" book has over 100 citations from scientists from various fields, and is still used this day. Its in my library. Him and the others have recieved hundreds of citations, and have got hundreds of papers past peer review in some very prominant journals.

So, the above people are crackpots?

And lol, I guess if you dont like the message, shoot the messenger. Good form.

If they are indeed that, then I dread to think what you are.

And how can you say its not a science theory when I have shown you the predictions they made, shown you their accuracy, shown you the maths, shown you the journals their work is published in, been quite frank about what is now falsified, linked to the papers and (so far) remained civil in the face of your apparent blind ignorance?

What would make it a science theory for you? The usual?

* Makes falsifyable predictions.
* Experimental validation.
* Less free parameters than opposing theories.

What?

Zeuzzz · Nov 23, 2010

Ziggurat said:
Sorry, but that's a fail. ALL tired light theories require blurring, which is not observed.

Technically true, but theories that have similar resultant effects can use absorption instead of scattering, which will not produce blurring, and leads to a static universe. Hubbles redshifts have nothing to do with an expanding universe, amazingly the evidence is already there.

Uh, no. While galactic rotation curves don't match Newtonian gravity either, gravitational lensing is definitely a general relativity effect.

Dont ever say definately in cosmology or astronomy where getting direct proof is nigh on impossible. Eventually you will always be wrong in some way.

There are alternative theories.

That's another way of saying general relativity is wrong, even though you have no evidence that it is.

Dont address my point then

And no its not. In the specific circumstances I gave I am totally correct. Just found this too.

Actually, Newtonian gravity is proven wrong within the bounds of the solar system.

Depends on what the velocities and GPE's involved are.

But wait. I'm just going to relive this moment for a bit.

"Newtonian gravity is proven wrong" .... even within our own solar system.

I wonder how much more deviation from the theory we can expect as NG and GR are experimentally tested further and further. Took einstein something like 10 years to write GR, I dont expect a variation of it would be any quicker (technology will help though actually)

Quite wrong. The mass of the earth and the sun never enter into it. Really, this is an incredibly fundamental error on your part.

It is an error, but by no means fundamental, as it does not actually relate to plasma cosmology at all

I have a question for you.

Is inflation experimentally falsifiable? How?

My thoughts are pretty much summed up by these snippets:

"Inflation has become a cornerstone of cosmology — an enlargement of the hot big bang theory that is often taken for granted by theorists. But its venerated position as a paradigm creates nagging doubts about its predictiveness. Could it ever be ruled out? One of its strongest advocates, Andrei Linde, has suggested that it cannot be falsified, merely superseded by a better theory"

"This elasticity has diminished the faith of the general astronomical community in inflation, and even led some researchers to question whether inflationary cosmology is a branch of science at all"[/I]

sol invictus · Nov 23, 2010

Zeuzzz said:
I wonder how much more deviation from the theory we can expect as NG and GR are experimentally tested further and further. Took einstein something like 10 years to write GR, I dont expect a variation of it would be any quicker (technology will help though actually)

So far there's no evidence for anything wrong with GR. But lots of people are looking, and it's been subjected to many tests since 1916.

Is inflation experimentally falsifiable? How?

It's highly falsifiable. If the spectrum of primordial perturbations isn't nearly flat, inflation is ruled out. If the spatial curvature of the universe isn't nearly zero, it is ruled out. If the spectrum of CMB temperature perturbations didn't have a set of regularly spaced peaks and minima with heights as predicted by the theory, it's ruled out. If the B-mode polarization of the CMB, or the E-mode and TE cross correlations don't conform to the predictions of the theory, it's ruled out. Etc. - there are more.

sol invictus · Nov 23, 2010

Zeuzzz said:
Weird. For a crackpot Peratts "physics of the plasma universe" book has over 100 citations from scientists from various fields, and is still used this day. Its in my library. Him and the others have recieved hundreds of citations, and have got hundreds of papers past peer review in some very prominant journals.

So, the above people are crackpots?

Yes. A crackpot is someone that thinks that what nearly everyone else is doing is wrong (and in return, nearly everyone else thinks what the crackpot is doing is nonsense). Those credentials - which are not impressive considering we are discussing cosmology - are irrelevant to whether or not they are crackpots. Plenty of Nobel laureates turned into crackpots.

And how can you say its not a science theory when I have shown you the predictions they made, shown you their accuracy, shown you the maths, shown you the journals their work is published in, been quite frank about what is now falsified, linked to the papers and (so far) remained civil in the face of your apparent blind ignorance?

Some time ago I challenged you to produce one - one - specific, quantitative, falsifiable prediction of PC, and (after a few weeks of waffling, mumbling, weaseling, and dodging) you gave up and failed.

"PC" is not a scientific theory. Not even close.

Dancing David · Nov 23, 2010

Zeuzzz said:
Plus PC does not violate any of the basic laws of physics like BBT

So will you tell us what laws of physics the BBT violates Zeuzzz? If you mean some straw argument about how the BBT says 'the universe came from nothing', then you are wrong.

the universe came from 'we don't know'.

Zeuzzz · Nov 23, 2010

sol invictus said:
Some time ago I challenged you to produce one - one - specific, quantitative, falsifiable prediction of PC, and (after a few weeks of waffling, mumbling, weaseling, and dodging) you gave up and failed.

Ah yes, if I recall correctly I ended up giving you too much information but not enough specifics, and you put me on ignore.

Wondering if you read the previous page where I clearly stated numerous predictions plasma cosmology has made and how they differ from big bang theory? Did you read any of the references so you can see that the predictions were indeed made? http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6583582&postcount=3400 Most of which have been confirmed since.

I can give you some other predictions if you want. I'm not sure if you want to see specific predictions made in the past, or future predictions?

And I challenge you Sol to produce one of the predictions of BBT in return.

And with whatever pedantry tactic you decide to attack my prediction I will graciously return the favour with your one.

Dancing David · Nov 23, 2010

Zeuzzz said:
Paradoxical as a beginning in time from nothing is, if you assume this then you can work from there very easily.

Yup the same old straw, you have nothing new Zeuzz.

I might as well find a pattern in a part of the EM spectrum thats not been studied much, assign that huge universal significance, and then combine this with light data from galaxy clusters to prove once and for all that these two tiny nit picks of data are amazingly significant on a cosmological scale, and everything else can just be explained later by more mundane local things like pulsars or stars.

...

Zeuzz, you are worse than usual, it is not a nitpick, the Hubble redshift is visible everywhere, you can't explain it. You also have never provided the means and mechanisms for any of PC to be matching the evidence.

When asked for numbers and data you run away.

So what maintains your charge seperation? Hmmmm.

Zeuzzz · Nov 23, 2010

Dancing David said:
the universe came from 'we don't know'.

Well its an incomplete theory then and alternatives that dont have this same problem need to be expanded upon and given funding to see where they lead.

Dancing David · Nov 23, 2010

Zeuzzz said:
Thats why I'll happily say that current plasma cosmology is, in the big picture, just as much a load of hogwash as the big bang theory.

So what silly idea do you have to explain the observed redshift Zeuzzz, every one you have presented in the past has been inadequate.

Dancing David · Nov 23, 2010

Zeuzzz said:
Technically true, but theories that have similar resultant effects can use absorption instead of scattering, which will not produce blurring, and leads to a static universe. Hubbles redshifts have nothing to do with an expanding universe, amazingly the evidence is already there.

Except you haven't shown that Zeuzzz, yet again when confronted with a detail that the theory would need to explain, you wave your hands and waffle.

The absorbtion issue, how is that working for you, I suppose you want to deny the alpha lyman forest? And all the data that does not support absorbtion as the mechanism for the redshift.

sol invictus · Nov 23, 2010

Zeuzzz said:
I can give you some other predictions if you want.

Pick one. Give us one quantitative, specific, falsifiable prediction that is specific to PC. It doesn't matter whether it's for the future or was already tested - I'd prefer the latter, but either way is OK.

It must be about cosmology, since that's the "C" in PC and the topic of this thread, and it must be specific to PC in the sense that standard BB cosmo predicts something different.

This is what you failed to do before, but you can take another shot. Remember, I only want one.

Once you've done that, we can open a new thread where I do the same for standard cosmo.

Dancing David · Nov 23, 2010

Zeuzzz said:
Well its an incomplete theory then and alternatives that dont have this same problem need to be expanded upon and given funding to see where they lead.

It would be an incomplete theory if it said it could explain the origin of the universe, it is a very accurate description of the universe for t>10^-36 seconds. If you were really interested we can talk about teh leading speculative theories of teh origin in another thread.

So your objection is that basically "I just don't like the BBT for some philosophical reason that is not in the theory'.

Dancing David · Nov 23, 2010

Zeuzzz said:
Ah yes, if I recall correctly I ended up giving you too much information but not enough specifics, and you put me on ignore.

Wondering if you read the previous page where I clearly stated numerous predictions plasma cosmology has made and how they differ from big bang theory? Did you read any of the references so you can see that the predictions were indeed made? http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6583582&postcount=3400 Most of which have been confirmed since.

I can give you some other predictions if you want. I'm not sure if you want to see specific predictions made in the past, or future predictions?

And I challenge you Sol to produce one of the predictions of BBT in return.

And with whatever pedantry tactic you decide to attack my prediction I will graciously return the favour with your one.

O whoops, Zeuzz, get sober for a few days, get some sleep and come back.

You have the burden to provide the ideas that you believe in, so far you papers that you have presented have been critiqued and found wanting every time.

THE BURDEN IS ON YOU to decide what papers and ideas YOU feel are adequate.

It is even sloppier than usual for you to say 'you pick from my laundry list', nope

The budern in one you to pick from your laundry list Zeuzzz.

Rest your brain, get some sleep, come back when you know what you think and why.

Zeuzzz · Nov 23, 2010

Dancing David said:
So what silly idea do you have to explain the observed redshift Zeuzzz, every one you have presented in the past has been inadequate.

"The death of the Big Bang Theory predicted by Zwicky in 1929 and proclaimed by Marmet 20 years ago is supported today by QED induced redshift of galaxy light in cosmic dust that negate Hubble's expanding Universe based Doppler shift"

http://qedradiation.scienceblog.com/tag/tired-light/

Zeuzzz · Nov 23, 2010

sol invictus said:
Pick one. Give us one quantitative, specific, falsifiable prediction that is specific to PC. It doesn't matter whether it's for the future or was already tested - I'd prefer the latter, but either way is OK.

On the abundance of lithium in old stars, BB nucleosynthesis clearly predicts that as we look back to stars with less and less heavy metal, more and more pristine, Li levels should converge on the abundance predicted by BBN. Plasma cosmology explains Li as the product of cosmic ray collisions with CNO in the early formation of the galaxy and thus predicts that Li abundance will be less and less with lower and lower metal abundance. Recent observations have clearly shown the later to be the case—lithium is far below the BBN predictions and for stars with less than about ½% the iron as the sun, Li abundance declines with Fe abundance.

See http://arxiv.org/abs/0805.3341v1 and http://arxiv.org/abs/0904.1448v1

Relevant papers:
Galactic Model of Element Formation
http://www.photonmatrix.com/pdf/Galactic Model of Element Formation.pdf

On The Problem Of Big bang Nucleosynthesis
http://www.photonmatrix.com/pdf/On The Problem Of Big bang Nucleosynthesis.pdf

sol invictus · Nov 23, 2010

Zeuzzz said:
On the abundance of lithium in old stars, BB nucleosynthesis clearly predicts that as we look back to stars with less and less heavy metal, more and more pristine, Li levels should converge on the abundance predicted by BBN. Plasma cosmology explains Li as the product of cosmic ray collisions with CNO in the early formation of the galaxy and thus predicts that Li abundance will be less and less with lower and lower metal abundance. Recent observations have clearly shown the later to be the case—lithium is far below the BBN predictions and for stars with less than about ½% the iron as the sun, Li abundance declines with Fe abundance.

See http://arxiv.org/abs/0805.3341v1 and http://arxiv.org/abs/0904.1448v1

Relevant papers:
Galactic Model of Element Formation
http://www.photonmatrix.com/pdf/Galactic Model of Element Formation.pdf

On The Problem Of Big bang Nucleosynthesis
http://www.photonmatrix.com/pdf/On The Problem Of Big bang Nucleosynthesis.pdf

Very well, lithium abundance it is. There is indeed a tension in BBC with Li abundances, although to find out how serious it is I will need to do some reading. Probably some other forum members can help with that.

For the PC side, you've provided two papers by Eric Lerner. Can I assume that - in your view - the theory presented in those papers is (part of) PC, and that the results in those papers were derived correctly from the theory?

Dancing David · Nov 23, 2010

Zeuzzz said:
"The death of the Big Bang Theory predicted by Zwicky in 1929 and proclaimed by Marmet 20 years ago is supported today by QED induced redshift of galaxy light in cosmic dust that negate Hubble's expanding Universe based Doppler shift"

http://qedradiation.scienceblog.com/tag/tired-light/

Um so, you quote a general science page with only two article citations? Really, I will read it later.

ETA: make that no article citations, one reference to a website that has a broken link to a preprint.

The broken pdf: http://www.lyndonashmore.com/preprintpdf.pdf

So no access to this alleged paper, and no reference for who this Lyndon Ashmore is.

No searches found for Lyndon Ashmore on arXiv, so where is this paper Zeuzzz?

ben m · Nov 23, 2010

Zeuzzz said:
"The death of the Big Bang Theory predicted by Zwicky in 1929 and proclaimed by Marmet 20 years ago is supported today by QED induced redshift of galaxy light in cosmic dust that negate Hubble's expanding Universe based Doppler shift"

http://qedradiation.scienceblog.com/tag/tired-light/

Zeuzzz, is this an actual theory that you want to stand up for? Do you want to make a statement like "In my opinion, Plasma Cosmology's best theory of redshift is the NanoQED theory; it has been examined carefully by many PC advocates and the bugs have been worked out as best as we are able---I'm prepared to argue that its details are correct, and the case for PC would be weakened if we didn't have it."? (Or make a similar statement in your own words.)

Or: is this something you found on Google five minutes ago, said "hey, looks good, I can post THIS link to answer the redshift question", and have no science opinion on whatsoever?

Zeuzzz · Nov 23, 2010

ben m said:
Zeuzzz, is this an actual theory that you want to stand up for? Do you want to make a statement like "In my opinion, Plasma Cosmology's best theory of redshift is the NanoQED theory; it has been examined carefully by many PC advocates and the bugs have been worked out as best as we are able---I'm prepared to argue that its details are correct, and the case for PC would be weakened if we didn't have it."? (Or make a similar statement in your own words.)

Or: is this something you found on Google five minutes ago, said "hey, looks good, I can post THIS link to answer the redshift question", and have no science opinion on whatsoever?

The second option please sir.

Worth a poke

Looked intriguing till I looked into it and could not actually find a model behind the words.

My knee jerk reactions are not doing me any favors, especially in this thread as you will presume its plasma cosmology.

sol invictus · Nov 23, 2010

ben m said:
Zeuzzz, is this an actual theory that you want to stand up for? Do you want to make a statement like "In my opinion, Plasma Cosmology's best theory of redshift is the NanoQED theory; it has been examined carefully by many PC advocates and the bugs have been worked out as best as we are able---I'm prepared to argue that its details are correct, and the case for PC would be weakened if we didn't have it."? (Or make a similar statement in your own words.)

Or: is this something you found on Google five minutes ago, said "hey, looks good, I can post THIS link to answer the redshift question", and have no science opinion on whatsoever?

Zeuzzz said:
The second option please sir.

You see Zeuzzz, that's why I'm waiting for your response to this:

sol invictus said:
For the PC side, you've provided two papers by Eric Lerner. Can I assume that - in your view - the theory presented in those papers is (part of) PC, and that the results in those papers were derived correctly from the theory?

But as usual ben m is more eloquent than me, so:

sol ben said:
You've provided two papers by Eric Lerner. Is this an actual theory that you want to stand up for? Do you want to make a statement like "In my opinion, Plasma Cosmology's best theory of Li abundance is the theory described in those papers; it has been examined carefully by many PC advocates and the bugs have been worked out as best as we are able---I'm prepared to argue that its details are correct, and the case for PC would be weakened if we didn't have it."?

ben m · Nov 23, 2010

Zeuzzz said:
The second option please sir.

Worth a poke Looked intriguing till I looked into it and could not actually find a model behind the words.

My knee jerk reactions are not doing me any favors, especially in this thread as you will presume its plasma cosmology.

So: how can "plasma cosmology" have "superior predictive power", when there's not even a hint of a non-crackpot explanation for redshift? Redshift is practically the single most obvious observational fact about galaxies. The first things astronomers knew about galaxies were, in the following order: (a) they're not stars, (b) they contain stars, (c) they're redshifted, and (d) they're far away.

It's like saying "Clasma Posmology is the most predictive scientific theory of planet formation. All it needs is to do is explain how planets can go around stars."

Zeuzzz · Nov 23, 2010

Hang on Ive lost my flip flop, brb.

Zeuzzz · Nov 23, 2010

Well Sol I dont really care what you choose to critique, I'll listen whatever.

I'm leaning more to the predictions made by Lerner about radio absorption in the IGM using force free filaments that generate the CMB, and can also account for the alignment of the CBR anisotropy.

this theory hypotheses filaments that efficiently scatter radiation longer than about 100 microns, it predicts that radiation longer than this from distant sources will be absorbed, or to be more precise scattered, and thus will decrease more rapidly with distance than radiation shorter than 100 microns. Such an absorption has been demonstrated by comparing radio and far-infrared radiation from galaxies at various distances--the more distant, the greater the absorption effect. New observations have shown the exact same absorption at a wavelength of 850 microns, just as predicted by plasma theory.

Original model and prediction: Force Free Magnetic Filaments
http://www.photonmatrix.com/pdf/Force Free Magnetic Filaments.pdf

Radio Absorption By The Intergalactic Medium - Eric Lerner - The Astrophysical Journal
http://www.photonmatrix.com/pdf/Radio Absorption By The Intergalactic Medium.pdf

Intergalactic Radio Absorption And The COBE Data - Astrophysics and space science
http://www.photonmatrix.com/pdf/Intergalactic Radio Absorption And The COBE Data.pdf

I really dont care, critique both if you want. As far as I can see they are a couple of the most specific predictions made.

Zeuzzz · Nov 23, 2010

ben m said:
So: how can "plasma cosmology" have "superior predictive power", when there's not even a hint of a non-crackpot explanation for redshift? Redshift is practically the single most obvious observational fact about galaxies. The first things astronomers knew about galaxies were, in the following order: (a) they're not stars, (b) they contain stars, (c) they're redshifted, and (d) they're far away.

It's like saying "Clasma Posmology is the most predictive scientific theory of planet formation. All it needs is to do is explain how planets can go around stars."

The most worked on model to explain redshift is Baileys CREIL effect.

Zeuzzz · Nov 23, 2010

sol invictus said:
Can I assume that - in your view - the theory presented in those papers is (part of) PC, and that the results in those papers were derived correctly from the theory?

Umm im not entirely sure what you mean by this. Yes they are definately part of PC as they are the only PC explanation for various element abundances that have an alternative BBT based explanation.

I dont have a clue what you mean by "the results in those papers were derived correctly from the theory". They were derived from standard physics, plasma physics and mathematical deductions. PC does not have unique laws of physics.

Ziggurat · Nov 23, 2010

Zeuzzz said:
Technically true, but theories that have similar resultant effects can use absorption instead of scattering, which will not produce blurring, and leads to a static universe.

If you use absorption instead of scattering, then you don't get a red shift.

Hubbles redshifts have nothing to do with an expanding universe, amazingly the evidence is already there.

The alternatives you have presented don't actually match observation. Sorry, but expansion is still the only explanation which accounts for the red shift.

There are alternative theories.

Really? What alternative to general relativity explains gravitational lensing?

Just found this too.

I notice that you didn't actually cite where this came from. Without a source, this can't really be put in much context, so it's rather difficult to evaluate what it's trying to say (for example, several acronyms are undefined here).

And what significance do you think this actually has?

But wait. I'm just going to relive this moment for a bit.

"Newtonian gravity is proven wrong" .... even within our own solar system.

Why are you even discussing gravity if you don't already know that? Why did you need me to tell you?

I wonder how much more deviation from the theory we can expect as NG and GR are experimentally tested further and further.

Why would anyone bother to test Newtonian gravity further when we already know when and how it breaks down?

As for GR, yes, that may break down at some point too. In fact, we already have some idea of where that might happen.

Took einstein something like 10 years to write GR, I dont expect a variation of it would be any quicker (technology will help though actually)

I don't either. But as with special and general relativity supplanting Newtonian physics, whatever supplants GR is almost certain to only show significant deviation in extreme conditions. So there's no reason to expect it to be relevant to cosmology.

It is an error, but by no means fundamental, as it does not actually relate to plasma cosmology at all

It's fundamental to your misunderstanding of physics.

I have a question for you.

Is inflation experimentally falsifiable? How?

Yes it is. And the way it is falsifiable has been explained many times in the past in these threads, by people more familiar with it than I am. I do not care to repeat their work, because I cannot improve upon it.

But it's also somewhat beside the point. Whatever the faults of inflation, the conclusion that the universe is currently expanding is the ONLY conclusion which is supported by observation and known physics. Plasma cosmology theories are either unfalsifiable or already falsified, and you can't rescue any of them no matter how many holes you poke in inflation.

ben m · Nov 23, 2010

Zeuzzz said:
The most worked on model to explain redshift is Baileys CREIL effect.

Zeuzzz said:
I dont have a clue what you mean by "the results in those papers were derived correctly from the theory". They were derived from standard physics, plasma physics and mathematical deductions. PC does not have unique laws of physics.

Well, Zeuzzz, the CREIL effect (I assume you mean http://il.arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0203/0203099v1.pdf) is not standard physics. It's complete baloney, guesswork, and cherry-picked extrapolations, from the atomic physics on down. The author appears to pull the CREIL effect out of thin air, by guessing that (laboratory, solid, laser-stimulated) ISRS works similarly-ish without the solid or the laser. He's wrong. His atomic physics is ... well, it appears to be just complete nonsense, having nothing to do with ISRS.

If there were a mechanism under which individual gas molecules could Raman-scatter incoming photons, and ONLY downward---never upward, like real Raman---and do so perfectly in the forward direction, it would still not agree with data.

a) First, it's stochastic. Photon A scatters 100+/- sqrt(100) times, Photon B from the same source, on the same path, scatters 100+/- sqrt(100) times. They have different energies at the end.

b) It's not the same on all lines of sight. Redshifts look the same when you look through a filament or through a void. This is simply not possible if the redshift is related to line-of-sight gases. It's nonsense.

c) It doesn't explain time-dilation, which is observed.

d) There is no way it works the same at all wavelengths, from 21cm to (say) 7 keV (the iron line). (Does GLAST have any extragalactic sources at 511 keV yet?) That's not what atoms do.

e) Olber's Paradox. In this model the CMB is not a blackbody, and it's not a relic---it's the sum of all of the "missing" energies of all of the optical photons since the birth of the Universe.

f) There is no evidence that the purported scattering-molecules are actually there. The only thing we see in intergalactic space is atomic hydrogen (H, not H2).

And so on. Seriously, Zeuzzz, this is a stack of standard crackpot papers on yet another crappy grey-dust theory. That's the best you've got? Really?

Reality Check · Nov 23, 2010

Zeuzzz said:
And I challenge you Sol to produce one of the predictions of BBT in return.

No he will not. This is the plasma cosmology thread.
Crackpots often resort to the fallacy of false dichotomy where they imagine that the evidence against one theory is evidence for their theory.

Please do not label yourself as a crackpot by committing the same fallacy, Zeuzzz.

ben m · Nov 23, 2010

Zeuzzz said:
The most worked on model to explain redshift is Baileys CREIL effect.

And, let me add: show me the "predictive power." I'm not seeing any predictive power here whatsoever. Show me. What's the list of free parameters, and the list of data points used to test the model?

ben m · Nov 23, 2010

Zeuzzz said:
Wondering if you read the previous page where I clearly stated numerous predictions plasma cosmology has made and how they differ from big bang theory? Did you read any of the references so you can see that the predictions were indeed made? http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6583582&postcount=3400 Most of which have been confirmed since.

Those are not predictions, they are dishonestly compared to the Big Bang standard, and they are dishonestly presented as "confirmed".

#1. That's not a prediction, nor a confirmation, that's a statement of parts of the two models.

#2. The Big Bang doesn't predict that the Universe is nonfilamentary. When I say the words "Large Scale Structure", this is what I'm talking about. The observed filaments are exactly what you predict from gravity's normal attraction, acting on the exact same set of wave modes that also explain the CMB. Again, this is a numerical agreement. Where is PC's numerical prediction of large-scale structure? (NOTE: digging up a random plasma simulation and saying "Look, there are filaments in this random tokamak photo, and also in cosmology" is not the same thing as saying "The actual space plasma in my actual cosmology theory obeys *these* force laws, and here I show *those* force laws making filaments with *this* power spectrum")

#3. Citation #30 doesn't predict CMB anisotropy; it's an attempt to explain CMB isotropy, not anisotropy. (As a side note is uses incompetent statistics. You can't do a least squares fit to a line in log-log space. It just doesn't work. 100% of the "statistical significance" of that line-fit---which is the entire content of the paper---is due to the two leftmost data points.)

Citation #31 barely mentions the CMB at all, and when it does it doesn't mention anisotropy---but it DOES throw out a handful of alternative CMB theories all of which are different than the one in reference #30. (It's also a generic crackpot paper, right down to the "whoa, what if atoms are like, little galaxies" speculations.)

#4. The Big Bang prediction of random anisotropy is one of the most precisely confirmed aspects of the whole thing. It's called "gaussianity". The preferred-orientation? It's called a dipole. It's there because the Earth/Sun/Milky Way are moving, and has nothing to do with the source of the CMB. If you think the Sun/Earth/MW motion does not predict a dipole, then you're insane. Can there be another preferred orientation? Sure, you could have a quadrupole. You know what the data says? The single most surprising thing about the CMB is that the quadrupole is unusually weak. The lack of a quadrupole term tells you quite strongly that the CMB is not somehow dependent on a local B-field vector.

And I challenge you Sol to produce one of the predictions of BBT in return.

Why don't you list the standard ones and tell us what you think of *them*. You've heard of them before. Pedagogical, historical, and technical references are very easy to find.

The CMB (temperature, blackbody spectrum, Gaussian scale-invariant fluctuations, strong E-mode polarization correlated with temperature ... ), the LSS (CDM evolution under gravity with exactly the CMB as initial condition, plus BAO with the CMB as initial condition), weak lensing (same prediction as LSS with a different z-dependence), SNe (should show Hubble's Law, including time dilation, with all the GR constants set from LSS and CMB data), LyA (same prediction as LSS, tested at different redshifts), BBN (has to match the time/temperature/density history seen in the CMB)

sol invictus · Nov 23, 2010

Zeuzzz said:
Well Sol I dont really care what you choose to critique, I'll listen whatever.

No Zeuzzz, it doesn't work that way. You asserted that PC is more predictive than the BB. Now it's time to back that up. So you pick one prediction of PC, we'll take a look.

It has to be specific and quantitative and cosmological. It has to differ from the BB either in the prediction or in the mechanism, or both. And most importantly, you have to say - in advance, before we analyze it - that it is a core part of PC, that the success of PC depends significantly on it, and that if it were falsified, it would falsify or significantly weaken the case for PC as a theory of cosmology.

I'm leaning more to the predictions made by Lerner about radio absorption in the IGM using force free filaments that generate the CMB, and can also account for the alignment of the CBR anisotropy.

Make up your mind - pick something and take a stand. That's where you failed last time, and that's probably where you'll fail this time too. Science is about making falsifiable predictions, that's what distinguishes it from religion.

Skwinty · Nov 23, 2010

ben m said:
The only thing we see in intergalactic space is atomic hydrogen (H, not H2).

Are you saying there is no molecular hydrogen in intergalactic space, or, just that it is difficult to detect?

Stephans Quintet is emitting large molecular hydrogen signals.

The antenna also sees so I may be misreading your statement.

Reality Check · Nov 23, 2010

The real problem with plasma cosmology (PC) that Zeuzzz is confirming yet again is that PC does not exist!

Thus it is impossible for Zeuzzz to produce a testable, falsifiable prediction from PC.

As stated a couple of years

eye-poppi) ago (emphasis added):

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: (long list snipped)

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.

ben m · Nov 23, 2010

Skwinty said:
Are you saying there is no molecular hydrogen in intergalactic space, or, just that it is difficult to detect?

Let me be careful with this. We measure the Ly-alpha forest in intergalactic space; we see this as an absorption of UV photons at the HI-absorption-edge, when broadband light from distant quasars and galaxies traverses this "forest" of absorbers. The forest is transparent to everything longer than the H absorption line at 1215A.

This forest is at such a low density that you don't expect molecules to form.

Now: you can tell the difference between HI and H_2 absorption using stellar sources. That's how we know, in part, that dense H clouds (like those found in galaxies) are molecular, not atomic. But I realize I'm not sure if there is a good absorption signal for H_2 in Lyman-alpha clouds.

So I should say that "based on the behavior of hydrogen, there shouldn't be much molecular hydrogen in intergalactic Ly-A clouds, and there is no evidence to the contrary[/I]." But I can't personally put a number on a H_2/H ratio (or a limit on such a ratio) derived from data.

Skwinty · Nov 24, 2010

Thanks for the clarification.

Tubbythin · Nov 25, 2010

ben m said:
e) Olber's Paradox. In this model the CMB is not a blackbody, and it's not a relic---it's the sum of all of the "missing" energies of all of the optical photons since the birth of the Universe.

Forgive my pedantry, but I think you mean "Olbers'"

Tubbythin · Nov 25, 2010

Zeuzzz said:
Most professional scientists dont ignore models they dont like. They may cite them, refute them, or reply to them indirectly. The fact that they have not been able to find ONE peer reviewed refutation of any plasma cosmology material speaks absolute volumes. Scientists must read it and pretty much agree, else there would be rebuttals.

It does speak volumes and volumes just not the way you think. What it basically says is probably a mixture of the following:
a) Cosmologists don't read the relevant journals because they're not published in relevant (prestigious) cosmology journals.
b) Cosmologists don't write rebuttals because they think of it as a joke. From limited personal experience, responses are only usually written in response to results that are taken seriously in the relevant community.
c) Journals won't publish responses that reject stuff that nobody but a few "fringe" scientists take seriously anyway.

In other words, you have presented no evidence whatsoever for the claim that "Scientists must read it and pretty much agree".

Tubbythin · Nov 25, 2010

This has already been done but...

Zeuzzz said:
Based on its superior predictive power, better more scientifically sound starting assumptions and the fact that we now know that 99.99% of the matter in the universe is infact matter in a plasma state (not solid, liquid, or gas, like was assumed when the Big Bang theory and the standard model for the sun and stars was formulated) and thus the universe should obey primarily complex plasma physics, dependent on the charge separation in space plasma, not fluid and gas equations that the big bang and solar models are based on.

Plasma is a fluid.

The problem is this. When the Big Bang was first proposed (as a joke by cosmologist fred hoyle "it just went "bang!" everything from nothing" he said, or something similar) the equivalent of a messiah came to answer all these big questions cosmologists had been struggling with for years*. Paradoxical as a beginning in time from nothing is, if you assume this then you can work from there very easily. Soon people were expanding on the idea, new research was funded, huge facilities built, billions invested, all to try to discover more about the magical CMB and expansion and what it might tell us about the origin of the universe.

The above is wrong in very many ways. Fred Hoyle did not propose the Big Bang model. In fact when it was in its infancy, Hoyle was about 10. He coined the term "Big Bang" in a derogatory sense. But the theory of an expanding universe had been around since the mid 1920's and caught on in the 1930's after Hubble's observations.
The sentence about a messiah is of course utter nonesense. It is your own personal choice to invoke religious connotations, nobody elses here. As for "struggling with for years..." it wasn't until the earlyish 1920's that we even new there was more than one galaxy in the Universe.
As for "Paradoxical"... can you:
a) explain why the notion of a beginning of time is any more paradoxical than an infinite amount of time.
b) explain why you believe the Big Bang model proposes a beginning of time.

The effect was very weird. Scientists starting coming over all religous about this issue*. They had started to put all this work and effort into the idea of a definitive beginning in time for the universe, so any time someone pointed out that the laws of physics as we know do not allow the big bang to happen it really seemed to touch a nerve. Instead of the main cosmologists at the time being honest with the public they instead started to give the impression that they had worked out the biggest mystery in the universe. Us primitive apes, despite all our fancy equipment, arcane mathematical abstractions and all these hypothetical entities never discovered on earth, are basically clutching in the dark, Big Bang models are still riddled with assumptions and issues. Yet instead of evaluating the different frameworks they could approach cosmology from they ploughed on with the models they had started based on expansion and the CMB. So within a few years textbooks in schools were being published with Big Bang theory work as if it was fact. University courses were set up, millions goes into new investment. And the only real evidence for it was in their interpretation of the data they use to prove expansion, and apparently the homogeneity of the microwave part of the em spectrum means something amazingly cool and big bangy (depending on how you interpret the data!)

What touches a nerve with a lot of people is when other people make stuff up in order to misrepresent there views. Stuff like: "Scientists starting coming over all religous about this issue*. They had started to put all this work and effort into the idea of a definitive beginning in time for the universe"
Errm the CMB was discovered in the late 1960's. It was a prediction of the Big Bang model made originally by Alpher and Gamow.
And no that really isn't the only evidence

I might as well find a pattern in a part of the EM spectrum thats not been studied much, assign that huge universal significance, and then combine this with light data from galaxy clusters to prove once and for all that these two tiny nit picks of data are amazingly significant on a cosmological scale, and everything else can just be explained later by more mundane local things like pulsars or stars.

Well er, no. You might as well predict the existence of the line shape of a specific part of the spectrum that is almost completely spatially isotropic. Then observe this to be spot on to extraordinary precision. Then predict the sizes and distributions of the tiny spatial fluctuations needed by the relevant model and then observe these to be in precise agreement too. When you've done that, and surpassed this phenomenal achievement, then you'll be in a good position to belittle the significance of the work.

Even mention at uni that the Big Bang never happened and you'll be a laughing stock. Its just accepted fact. But show one of the people laughing an alternative explanation for the origin of the CMB by one of the various scientists that have made such models, or one of the better tired light related theories to put inflation into doubt, and they will just go kinda quiet.

There are no tired light theories that stand-up to any scrutiny... or show me wrong. Ditto CMB.

The Big Bang based projects get billions. Literally billions to send satellites up to study the data in space they have chosen to be significant. Funny thing is that plasma cosmology, despite getting hardly any funding at all, has used THEIR data, and found out that their predictions are still better to this day! If plasma cosmology was taken seriously by the religious zealots that seem to think that the Big Bang is the only theory allowed in town they could send satellites up to actually find what they want to. They are still doing well using the Big Bang based data though. But as it is they publish the work and models, buts its completely ignored by the "mainstream" cosmology community. )

This is just unevidenced assertions. I also note that you have descended to more ridiculous claims of "religious zealots" due, I must assume, to your inability to make a scientific argument.

Heres the *uncensored* plasma cosmology Wikipedia. It was taken down by admins at wikipedia that did not like the fact that the big bang had a competing theory that seemed to get far much more right with far simpler ideas.

Or because someone with a vested interest was undermining the integrity of the site perhaps?

Plasma Cosmology - Woo or not

Penultimate Amazing

Unregistered

Banned

Banned

Philosopher

Philosopher

Penultimate Amazing

Banned

Penultimate Amazing

Banned

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Philosopher

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Banned

Banned

Philosopher

Penultimate Amazing

Unregistered

Banned

Philosopher

Unregistered

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Penultimate Amazing

Unregistered

Penultimate Amazing

Unregistered

Unregistered

Philosopher

Philosopher

Penultimate Amazing

Unregistered

Philosopher

Illuminator

Illuminator

Illuminator