Plasma cosmology died when the COBE and WMAP results came in. It has no explanation for the isotropy of the CMBR, much less for the detailed structure indicated by the small anisotropies we can see with these tools. It also doesn't explain the X-ray sky.
ROTFLOL!
Your statement that plasma cosmology / electric universe theorists have no explanation for the isotropy of the CMBR, the detailed structure (anisotropies) seen by COBE and WMAP, or the x-ray sky is patently false.
Let's consider the cosmic microwave background first. Big Bang theorists like to claim that they successfully predicted the 2.7K temperature of the CMB before Penzias and Wilson detected it. In 1992, Joseph Silk even called this “the cornerstone of Big Bang cosmology”. But that claim is completely false.
According to multiple sources (such as
http://www.dfi.uem.br/~macedane/history_of_2.7k.html ), Gamow actually predicted a series of temperatures, none of which actually came close to the measured value. He started with an estimate of 5K in 1948, raised it to 10K in the 1950's, and then in 1961 revised it upwards again to 50K. In doing so, he even ignored observations by astronomer Andrew Kellar who in 1941 announced a temperature of 2.3K from radiative excitation of certain molecules. Yet in textbook after textbook, he gets credit for "predicting" the background temperature of 2.7K.
In contrast, Guillaume in 1896 predicted a temperature of 5.6K from heating by starlight. Sir Arthur Eddington refined that estimate in 1926, in his book, "The Internal Constitution of the Stars", and predicted a temperature of 3.1K. In Eddington’s estimation, this phenomenon was not due to some ancient explosion, but rather was simply the background radiation from all of the heat sources that occupy the Universe. He calculated the minimum temperature to which any particular body in space would cool, given the fact that such bodies constantly are immersed in the radiation of distant starlight. With no adjustable parameters, he obtained a value of 3.18 K (later refined to 2.8) — essentially the same as the observed “background” radiation that is known to exist today. Regener also predicted 2.8K in 1933 based on cosmic ray data and by showing that the intensity of the radiation coming from the plane of the Milky Way was essentially the same as that coming from a plane normal to it. In 1941, Herzberg found a temperature of 2.3K based on cyanogen measurements in interstellar space. Finlay-Freundlich, using tired light assumptions, concluded in the early 1950s that the temperature of intergalactic space would be between 1.9K and 6K.
All of these estimates assumed non-Big Bang assumptions about cosmology, yet all were more accurate than the estimates by Gamov. This means that the discovery of Penzias and Wilson in 1965 can not be considered evidence in favor of the Big Bang. On the contrary, it appears that alternative cosmology scientists more accurately predicted the temperature before Gamow. And not only that, in 1954 Max Born, who worked with Finlay-Freundlich, predicted that the radiation would be of radio frequency. That's eleven years before the accidental discovery by Penzias and Wilson using horn antennas designed for radio astronomy.
Anyone who thinks Big Bang is proven based on the CMBR should read this:
http://www.apologeticspress.org/modules.php?name=Read&cat=1&itemid=26 " The Big Bang Theory—A Scientific Critique [Part II] [Section 1]". It contains a devastating look at Big Bang with regards to facts surrounding the CMB. And some other gnomes (such as dark matter, dark energy and inflation).
And for the record, plasma cosmologists have no problem with the isotropy of the CMB. And they don't have to incorporate gnomes like inflation into their model to explain it.
Eric Lerner states "The amount of radiation emitted by distant galaxies falls with increasing wavelengths, as expected if the longer wavelengths are scattered by the intergalactic medium. For example, the brightness ratio of radio galaxies at infrared and radio wavelengths changes with distance in a way which implies absorption. Basically, this means that the longer wavelengths are more easily absorbed by material between the galaxies. But then the microwave radiation (between the two wavelengths) should be absorbed by that medium too, and has no chance to reach us from such great distances, or to remain perfectly uniform while doing so.
It must instead result from the radiation of microwaves from the intergalactic medium. This argument alone implies that the microwaves could not be coming directly to us from a distance beyond all the galaxies, and therefore that the Big Bang theory cannot be correct." Eric Lerner suggests that the microwave background is nothing more than a radio fog produced by plasma filaments, which has reached a natural isotropic thermal equilibrium of just under 3K. The radiation is simply starlight that has been absorbed and re-radiated, and echoes the anisotropies of the world around us. Just like those who actually did predict the CMB temperature said.
Hoyle, et al., also suggested: “It seems very reasonable to suppose that the microwave radiation might very well have arisen from hydrogen burning in stars”. Hoyle and his colleagues added to this thought when they stated that the “radiation field is generated by discrete objects and becomes smooth through scattering and diffusion in space”. This, then, portrays a practical reason for the overall isotropy [spread out evenly in all directions] of the CMB radiation through thermalization and the scattering effect, also known as the Sunyaev-Zeldovich Effect.
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002astro.ph.11036N "Inhomogeneities in the Microwave Background Radiation Interpreted within the Framework of the Quasi-Steady State Cosmology, Narlikar, et al., ApJ, 2003, Abstract: We calculate the expected angular power spectrum of the temperature fluctuations in the microwave background radiation (MBR) generated in the quasi-steady state cosmology (QSSC). The paper begins with a brief description of how the background is produced and thermalized in the QSSC. We then discuss within the framework of a simple model the likely sources of fluctuations in the background due to astrophysical and cosmological causes. Power spectrum peaks at l~6-10, 180-220, and 600-900 are shown to be respectively related in this cosmology to curvature effects at the last minimum of the scale factor, clusters, and groups of galaxies. The effect of clusters is shown to be related to their distribution in space as indicated by a toy model of structure formation in the QSSC. We derive and parameterize the angular power spectrum using six parameters related to the sources of temperature fluctuations at three characteristic scales.
We are able to obtain a satisfactory fit to the observational band power estimates of the MBR temperature fluctuation spectrum. Moreover, the values of the best-fit parameters are consistent with the range of expected values."
Now contrast this to your claim that the Big Bang *Theory* has the CMB explained. Let's look at some recent announcements regarding the WMAP data:
http://www.physorg.com/news76314500.html "September 01, 2006, ... snip ... In a finding sure to cause controversy, scientists at The University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH) found a lack of evidence of shadows from "nearby" clusters of galaxies using new, highly accurate measurements of the cosmic microwave background. ... snip ... "These shadows are a well-known thing that has been predicted for years," said Lieu. "This is the only direct method of determining the distance to the origin of the cosmic microwave background. Up to now, all the evidence that it originated from as far back in time as the Big Bang fireball has been circumstantial. ... snip ... If the standard Big Bang theory of the universe is accurate and the background microwave radiation came to Earth from the furthest edges of the universe, then massive X-ray emitting clusters of galaxies nearest our own Milky Way galaxy should all cast shadows on the microwave background. ... snip ...
Taken together, the data shows a shadow effect about one-fourth of what was predicted - an amount roughly equal in strength to natural variations previously seen in the microwave background across the entire sky. Either it (the microwave background) isn't coming from behind the clusters, which means the Big Bang is blown away, or ... there is something else going on," said Lieu." And there was this little tidbit at the end of that article: "Just over a year ago Lieu and Dr. Jonathan Mittaz, a UAH research associate, published results of a study using WMAP data to look for evidence of "lensing" effects which should have been seen (
but weren't) if the microwave background was a Big Bang remnant."
Clearly Big Bang is actually in trouble where the CMB is concerned. Strike One.
Now lets consider your claim that plasma cosmologists have no explanation for the detailed structure (anisotropies) seen by COBE and WMAP. Well I have some bad news for you.
Glenn Starkman of Case Western Reserve University has discovered some characteristics in the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) data that have serious consequences for the Standard Model.
http://burro.astr.cwru.edu/dept/Talks/starkman.shtml "Far from having the smooth, Gaussian distribution predicted by Big Bang, the microwave picture has distinct anisotropies, and what’s more says Starkman,
they are clearly aligned with local astrophysical structures, particularly the ecliptic of the Solar System. Once the dipole harmonic is stripped to remove the effect of the motion of the Solar System, the other harmonics, quadrupole, octopole, and so on reveal a distinct alignment with local objects.
The quadrupole and octopole power is concentrated on a ring around the sky and are essentially zero along a preferred axis. The direction of this axis is identical with the direction toward the Virgo cluster and lies exactly along the axis of the Local Supercluster filament of which our Galaxy is a part. This observation completely contradicts the Big Bang assumption that the CBR originated far from the local Supercluster and is, on the largest scale, isotropic without a preferred direction in space. Either the Big Bang assumption is wrong or there is something seriously wrong with the WMAP data."
Care to take bets?
And that's not the only problem with the WMAP data.
http://space.newscientist.com/article/mg19425994.000-axis-of-evil-a-cause-for-cosmic-concern.html : "'Axis of evil' a cause for cosmic concern, 13 April 2007, New Scientist, Zeeya Merali, *... snip ... According to the standard model, the universe is isotropic, or much the same everywhere. However, in 2005, Kate Land and João Magueijo of Imperial College London noticed a curious pattern in the map of the cosmic microwave background (CMB) created by NASA's WMAP satellite. It seemed to show that some hot and cold spots in the CMB are not distributed randomly, as expected, but are aligned along what Magueijo dubbed the axis of evil. Some astronomers have suggested straightforward explanations for the axis, such as problems with WMAP's instruments or distortions caused by a nearby supercluster (New Scientist, 22 October 2005, p 19). Others doubt the pattern's very existence. "There's still a fair bit of controversy about whether there's even something there that needs to be explained," says WMAP scientist Gary Hinshaw of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland. Now, two independent studies seem to confirm that it does exist. Damien Hutsemékers of the University of Liège in Belgium analysed the polarisation of light from 355 quasars and found that as the quasars get near the axis, the polarisation becomes more ordered than expected. Taken together, the polarisation angles from the quasars seem to corkscrew around the axis. ... snip ... The quasar finding has support from another study, however. Michael Longo of the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor analysed 1660 spiral galaxies from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey and found that the axes of rotation of most galaxies appear to line up with the axis of evil (
www.arxiv.org/astro-ph/0703325). According to Longo, the probability of this happening by chance is less than 0.4 per cent. "This suggests the axis is real, and not simply an error in the WMAP data," he says."
And how do Big Bang thinkers solve this problem? Of course ... tweek one of the gnomes ... inflation. Continuing from the above link ...
"One way to create the axis was presented by Contaldi at a conference on outstanding questions in cosmology at Imperial College last month. The universe is thought to be isotropic because the early universe went through a period of exponential expansion known as inflation, smoothing out any unevenness. Contaldi and his colleagues Emir Gümrükçüo?lu and Marco Peloso at the University of Minnesota, in Minneapolis, modified inflation to allow the universe to expand more in one direction. "Provided inflation stops at a relatively early point, this would leave traces of the early [unevenness] in the form of the axis of evil," he says."
But inflation has it's own set of problems with the CMB.
http://www.magicdave.com/ron/cosmology_at_the_beginning_of_a_.htm "Inflation is a theory that is unconfirmed at this time, which relies on GUT, another unconfirmed theory. Inflation has three main predictions that we should be able to confirm or disconfirm to a high degree of confidence in the near future. First, the universe is flat to within at least one part in 10^^50. ... snip ... The other two predictions have to do with the structure of the CMB. During the inflation era, random quantum fluctuations take place. They result in irregularities or anisotropies that later get carried over to the CMB because of gravitational interactions. These should be scale invariant - you don't get more of them in any period of time as the universe blows up than in any other period of time. These scale invariant fluctuations should result in certain characteristics - they should have what is known as a Gaussian distribution (this comes from their complete randomness) and they should peak at one degree of the sky, which is a length that is twice as big as the full moon.m ... snip ... What does the CMB say about inflation? Inflation's prediction of flatness is as yet not directly confirmed. But flatness and the scale invariance of the CMB are related. Calculations predict a peak of the anisotropy scale at one degree of sky, and finding such a peak is an indirect confirmation of flatness. ... snip ... But all is not well. Inflation theory predicts a series of secondary peaks in the anisotropy spectrum. They trail after the first peak at one degree at finer angular scales. ... snip ...
Boomerang and Maxima should have been sensitive enough to see the second peak. But if it is present, it is much smaller than theory predicts. No variant of inflation can account for this. In addition to these findings, studies of the COBE data show that the anisotropies may not be Gaussian. It would seem that whatever is going on, it’s more complicated than inflation and it’s more than anyone bargained for. "
Well if inflation isn't the answer, what can mainstream astrophysicists do? Of course, invent yet another magic gnome ...
Again from
http://space.newscientist.com/article/mg19425994.000-axis-of-evil-a-cause-for-cosmic-concern.html "Longo favours a more radical theory proposed by Paolo Cea of the University of Bari, in Italy, and Leonardo Campanelli of the University of Ferrara, Italy, which suggests that magnetic fields stretched across the universe could be responsible (New Scientist, 2 September 2006, p 28). "A magnetic field would naturally orient the spiral galaxies," says Longo. Regardless of the reasons, one thing is clear: the axis of evil won't be written off any time soon. "Interest keeps growing as people find more weirdly connected observations that can't all be put down to coincidence," says Land."
And just what creates this universe wide magnetic field?
And lest you think Big Bang's problems with WMAP data end there ... guess again.
http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/C...e_Of_Radiation_In_Interstellar_Space_999.html "Cosmological Data Affected By An Unexpected Source Of Radiation In Interstellar Space ... Nov 13, 2007,
The widely lauded discovery of small-scale structure in the cosmic microwave background may be seriously affected by a previously unidentified source of radio emission in our own Milky Way Galaxy. This is the conclusion arrived at by Dr. Gerrit Verschuur, Adjunct Professor of Physics at the University of Memphis. ... snip ... Verschuur was studying data from the first ever all-sky survey of interstellar neutral hydrogen (HI) when he noticed intriguing similarities to the structure observed by the Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) spacecraft. ... snip ... The anisotropy detected with WMAP confirms a discovery made a decade earlier by the Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE) spacecraft. ... snip ...
However, if even a small fraction of the anisotropy can be associated with structure in the Milky Way, the cosmological interpretations of the data could be called into question. ... snip ... According to his recent work, it appears that many of the small-scale structures observed by WMAP are correlated with HI. ... snip ... The new discovery, if confirmed, means that the structure superimposed on the cosmic microwave background is produced in the Milky Way and does not have a cosmic origin. Thus the cosmic microwave background signal from the early universe may be smoother than anyone expected, which raises new questions as to how structure ever emerged in the universe to create galaxies."
http://www.wired.com/science/space/news/2007/11/big_bang# "Big Bang or Big Goof? Astronomer Challenges 'Seeds' Proof ... snip ... Astronomers are abuzz because if Gerrit Verschuur of the University of Memphis is right, one of the most important theories developed in the past 15 years -- one that won a Nobel Prize -- would be toppled. ... snip ... He said he’s found at least 200 instances where the so-called cosmic seeds lie suspiciously close to known hydrogen clouds inside our galaxy. There's a long history of astronomical debates over whether celestial objects are close or distant. For example, the former Mt. Palomar and Mt. Wilson astronomer Halton Arp has argued that super-bright objects in the heavens, quasars, are located much closer to Earth than is generally believed, and that they’re ejected from galaxies like pinballs from pinball machines. But virtually all astronomers reject Arp’s claims on the grounds that they’re based on an unconvincing statistical analysis of the comparative locations of quasars and galaxies. This week, a similar critique is being lobbed against Verschuur."
Who could have guessed that the Big Bang community would respond in the same way they responded to Arp's claims? That the alignments are all just *chance* and *coincidence*. And you know how I feel about that one.
And let's not forget to mention one more form of anisotropy and the problems it causes for Big Bang before we move on to your next claim: voids.
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0411126 "Formation of voids in the Universe within the Lemaitre-Tolman model, Krzysztof Bolejko, Andrzej Krasinski, Charles Hellaby, 2004, Abstract: We develop models of void formation starting from a small initial fluctuation at recombination and growing to a realistic present day density profile in agreement with observations of voids. The model construction is an extension of previously developed algorithms for finding a Lemaitre-Tolman metric that evolves between two profiles of either density or velocity specified at two times. Of the 4 profiles of concern -- those of density and velocity at recombination and at the present day -- two can be specified and the other two follow from the derived model. We find that, in order to reproduce the present-day void density profiles, the initial velocity profile is more important than the initial density profile. Extrapolation of current CMB observations to the scales relevant to proto-voids is very uncertain. Even so,
we find that it is very difficult to make both the initial density and velocity fluctuation amplitudes small enough, and still obtain a realistic void by today."
The Big Bang astrophysicists who wrote that article find they cannot explain voids that are about 40-80 Mpc across? Well how big can voids get? Far larger than the above study assumed.
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/070823_huge_hole.html "The universe has a huge hole in it that dwarfs anything else of its kind. The discovery caught astronomers by surprise.
The hole is nearly a billion light-years across ... snip ... is mostly devoid of stars, gas and other normal matter, and it's also strangely empty of the mysterious "dark matter" that permeates the cosmos. Other space voids have been found before, but nothing on this scale.
Astronomers don't know why the hole is there. ... snip ... The region had been previously been dubbed the "WMAP Cold Spot," because it stood out in a map of the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) radiation made by NASA's Wilkinson Microwave Anisotopy Probe (WMAP) satellite."
http://www.trustedlog.com/2007/11/26/parallel-universe-exists-we-have-evidence/ "
The dimension of the hole is so big that at first glance, it results impossible to explain under the current cosmological theories, although scientists put forward some explanations based on certain theoretical models that might predict the existence of “giant knots” in space known as topological defects. However, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill physics Professor Laura Mersini-Houghton made a staggering claim. She says, “Standard cosmology cannot explain such a giant cosmic hole” and goes further with the ground-breaking hypothesis that the huge void is “… the unmistakable imprint of another universe beyond the edge of our own“.
That last part shows just how desperate mainstream astrophysicists are getting. A *parallel universe* indeed. Talk about a gnome.
That void is a problem for Big Bang in several ways. First, that void would really take a REALLY long time to form according to mainstream theory.
A billion light years is about 300 Mpc and they couldn't even explain a 80 Mpc void. Perhaps that's why the source "Extragalactic Radio Sources and the WMAP Cold spot", by Lawrence Rudnick , Shea Brown, Liliya R. Williams, Department of Astronomy, Universityof Minnesota, 3 August 2007" derived such a low probability (3 X 10^^-5) for the existance of it under Big Bang assumptions.
Second, the big bang, cold dark matter universe is founded on the assumption that the distribution of matter (both normal and dark) becomes evenly spread at sufficiently large scales. Mainstream astrophysicists claim that the pattern should start to smooth out at about 200 million light years. Obviously, it didn't. Perhaps that's why the astronomers who announced the void's discovery, Lawrence Rudnick, Shea Brown and Liliya R. Williams, of the University of Minnesota, said
“Not only has no one ever found a void this big, but we never even expected to find one this size.” Perhaps that's why
http://space.newscientist.com/artic...in-space-is-1-billion-light-years-across.html reports "
The finding challenges theories of large-scale structure formation in the universe."
And one more point about this void. The WMAP detected it because the CMB was interpreted as 20 to 45 percent lower than in the surrounding space. They then looked at the SDSS survey and saw the space contained no galaxies. If galaxies and plasma filaments are the source of the CMB as plasma cosmologists suggest, this makes perfect sense. In fact, plasma cosmology has no problem with ANY of the above observations. They've always predicted that the universe would be filamentary at all scales. Time to create large structures has never been a problem because the age of the universe has no set beginning. The anisotropy of the CMB comes naturally from the spatial configuration of the inter-galactic filaments which absorb and re-emit the radiation. This accounts for the near isotropy and also for the small fluctuations. And the latest WMAP data seem to be supportive of that assertion.
So, Strike Two.
Finally, let's examine your claim that plasma cosmology has no explanation for the x-ray sky. Now I'm not exactly sure what you mean but let's start with this:
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=0005AAAA-8C85-10DC-8C8583414B7F0000 "Milky Way X-ray Mystery Deepens, June 28, 2004 ... snip ... Recently, observers spent 170 hours pointing NASA's Chandra x-ray telescope at a 100-light-year-wide region around the galactic center in hopes of elucidating matters. The results raise as many questions as they answer".
Read that and you'll discover that mainstream astrophysicists don't really have a clue what is going on near the galactic center of the Milky Way. Perhaps that's because they continue to ignore the work of Alfven, Peratt, Lerner and others that might explain these observations?
The article notes that the obvious x-ray sources like white dwarfs, neutron stars (BAC - or whatever those objects actually are), black holes (BAC - or whatever those objects actually are), and distant galaxies lying behind the Milky Way cannot explain the x-rays. And neither can the unresolved objects in the field that was studied by Chandra. In fact, they say the galactic center would have to contain 10 times more objects than are predicted to exist.
The article states "Instead the majority of the galactic center's ghostlike x-ray emission appears to be coming from two bodies of hot ionized gas, or plasma. The two plasmas occupy essentially the same volume, but one has a temperature of 10 million degrees Celsius and the other about 100 million degrees C."
Starting to get the picture?
The article continues "the origin of the hotter gas remains an enigma."
But not for plasma theorists. Alfvén theorized that x-ray and gamma-ray bursts are due to exploding double layers. Electric Universe (EU) theorists believe exploding double layers are very important in stellar outbursts. Plus, it is the only stellar explosion mechanism that naturally produces bipolar remnants and equatorial ejection disks. According to EU theorists, a number of double layers develop in series between a star and its galactic environment. And galaxies also have double layers.
Alfvén explained the higher than expected temperatures in the first paragraph of Chapter 1 of his book, Cosmic Plasma. He noted that the lab plasma was "complicated and awkward. The plasma exhibited striations, double layers, and an assortment of oscillations and instabilities.
The electron temperature was often found to be one or two orders of magnitude larger than the gas temperature, with the ion temperature intermediate."
And how about this datum regarding another x-ray mystery:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2001/08/010810064535.htm "Astronomers Go Behind The Milky Way To Solve X-Ray Mystery
ScienceDaily (Aug. 10, 2001) ... snip ... astronomers using NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory have taken a long, hard look at the plane of the Milky Way galaxy and found that its X-ray glow comes from hot and diffuse gas. ... snip ... "The point sources we saw in the galactic plane were actually active galaxies with bright cores millions of light years behind our galaxy," said Ebisawa. ... snip ... Detection of diffuse X-rays emanating from the galactic plane, what we call the "Milky Way" in visible light, indicates the presence of plasma gas with temperatures of tens of millions of degrees Celsius. Gas this hot would escape the gravitational confines of the Milky Way galaxy under normal circumstances. The fact that it still lingers within the galactic plane is the next mystery to solve. One possibility, suggested by Ebisawa is that hot plasma may be confined to the Milky Way by magnetic fields."
Magnetic fields generated by what? Perhaps that homopolar motor that Alfven theorized? And the above certainly isn't a Big Bang related source for the x-rays. It suggests ALL galaxies are producing them.. In fact,
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/24336 "Mar 2, 2006, Milky Way X-ray mystery solved ... snip ... Astronomers have found evidence that the diffuse haze of X-rays that envelopes the Milky Way is produced by hundreds of millions of individual stars."
http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Milky_Way_X_Ray_Map_Reveals_Millions_Of_New_Objects.html "A new map of the Milky Way shows the galaxy is ablaze from hundreds of millions of individual X-ray sources, enough to cause scientists to consider they may have underestimated the galactic population of these objects by as much as a hundredfold."
And electric stars produced x-rays. Galaxies produce x-rays. So do comets, for that matter (an observation that the electric comet theory explains but which still has mainstream astrophysicists scratching their heads). If the CMB is coming from material that's not primordial (as surely indicated in my answer to the other two issues you raised), then so could the x-ray glow that is attributed to the CMB.
So it looks like Strike Three. You are OUT.
