Plasma Cosmology - Woo or not

[Reality Check]

There are a couple of plasma cosmologists on the forum (Hi Zeuzzz and maybe BeAChooser). They have been posting in various threads from their plasma cosmolgy perspective but this has lead to derailed threads.

This thread has been started so that the topic can be dicuseed in one place rather than be spread over several threads.


The questions to be answered:

• What is Plasma Cosmology?
• How do it's predictions fit the observed data, e.g. the CMB anisotropy?
• What falsifiable predictions does it make?
  A scientitic theory has to make falsifiable predictions so that it can be tested to see if it is valid or not.

Perhaps Zeuzzz or BeAChooser can start by posting a concise description of Plasma Cosmology so that we have a common point to start from.

One guideline: Please no massive posts of links and quotes.
Posts with multiple topics in them make the thread confusing. Try to limit yourself to a single topic in a posting with a few links related to that topic.

[Zeuzzz]

This post I just wrote may act as a good starting point; http://www.internationalskeptics.com...6&postcount=86

And this wikipedia page; http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?...4#cite_note-37

And this for Alfvens original approach to PC, aswell as some of Peratts material; http://plasmascience.net/tpu/papers-cosmology.html

And a few of Lerners plasma cosmology publications would make a good addition, some of which can be seen in full here; http://www.plasma-universe.com/index.php/Eric_Lerner


It'll be interesting to see where this thread leads when I return here in the near future, but please, none of the ignorant and presumptuos comments, much of the material is beggining to become available to see online, and you dont need me to find it for you.

[DeiRenDopa]

Originally Posted by Reality Check

... snip ...

Perhaps Zeuzzz or BeAChooser can start by posting a concise description of Plasma Cosmology so that we have a common point to start from.

One guideline: Please no massive posts of links and quotes.
Posts with multiple topics in them make the thread confusing. Try to limit yourself to a single topic in a posting with a few links related to that topic.

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

This post I just wrote may act as a good starting point; http://www.internationalskeptics.com...6&postcount=86

... snip ...

Um, er, ...

Zeuzzz, that post you just wrote contains ~2,000 words, 2 (long) quotes, 3 links, and 11 references (each of which is a link). The 11 references include a 178 page book, and the entire proceedings of a summer workshop.

Would you mind posting a concise description of Plasma Cosmology, please?

[Zeuzzz]

Originally Posted by DeiRenDopa

Um, er, ...

Zeuzzz, that post you just wrote contains ~2,000 words, 2 (long) quotes, 3 links, and 11 references (each of which is a link). The 11 references include a 178 page book, and the entire proceedings of a summer workshop.

Would you mind posting a concise description of Plasma Cosmology, please?

No.

Could you please post a concise description of all the concepts behind modern mainstream cosmology, please?

Of course you cant.

I'm not falling into that trap. And I cant be bothered to spend my exam time copying and pasting material here because you're too lazy to explore any of the links I have provided you with. I've already spent too much time today with that previous post on the other thread, and this discussion is not going to be productive unless I have a chance to discuss PC in its entirety.

Just do some reading, and since you think that PC is soo woo, I expect you to return here with a long list of major scientific problems with all the peer reviewed publications in the links above. Incase you missed it;

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

This post I just wrote may act as a good starting point; http://www.internationalskeptics.com...6&postcount=86

And this wikipedia page; http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?...4#cite_note-37

And this for Alfvens original approach to PC, aswell as some of Peratts material; http://plasmascience.net/tpu/papers-cosmology.html

And a few of Lerners plasma cosmology publications would make a good addition, some of which can be seen in full here; http://www.plasma-universe.com/index.php/Eric_Lerner


It'll be interesting to see where this thread leads when I return here in the near future, but please, none of the ignorant and presumptuos comments, much of the material is beggining to become available to see online, and you dont need me to find it for you.

[Dancing David]

Some hard numbers would be nice, like how do you scale from Perrat's 10 cm model to a galaxy, what scales, especially the EM fields would be nice.

I will read the other post and respond where appropriate.

[The Atheist]

Originally Posted by DeiRenDopa

Would you mind posting a concise description of Plasma Cosmology, please?

Fascinating subject - Robinson will be pleased.

To me, it's all Greek, but it seems pretty easy to find out the basics. Probably the simplest way - and in superb format vidoes - is to start with YouTube!

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

(isn't using colour-enhanced pics a little sneaky?)

Zeuzzz: this seems to be an alternative theory to DM/DE? How will CERN aid/hinder you?

[Dancing David]

Well, this one the Perrat paper in Natural Science is a bust.
http://plasmascience.net/tpu/downloa...mology1W&I.pdf
He discusses a japernese American exploration of the CMB but he doesn't mention who did it or where? And then even worse he discusses Arp's bizzare contention that certain galaxies are associated with QSOs, using really questionable statistics.

So gosh that is such a fine article that i had to go to Wikipedia to find the ciatation

Quote:

Second, in 1987 a Japanese-American team led by Andrew Lange and Paul Richards of UC Berkeley and Toshio Matsumoto of Nagoya University made an announcement that CMB was not that of a true black body. In a sounding rocket experiment, they detected an excess brightness at 0.5 and 0.7 mm wavelengths. These results cast doubt on the validity of the Big Bang theory in general and help support the Steady State theory.[2]

So what is the end of the story?

that the sounding rocket was wrong and COBE said that there was a perfect blackbody spectrum.

Arp's statitics are abysamal, he is great astrionomer and a bad statistician.

[Zeuzzz]

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Fascinating subject - Robinson will be pleased.

To me, it's all Greek, but it seems pretty easy to find out the basics. Probably the simplest way - and in superb format vidoes - is to start with YouTube!

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

(isn't using colour-enhanced pics a little sneaky?)

Zeuzzz: this seems to be an alternative theory to DM/DE? How will CERN aid/hinder you?

I would be careful with that video, its from the documentary "thunderbolts of the gods", and although I find it all fascinating, it does not really represent plasma cosmology. Its more the speculative "electric universe" theory, which does share more similarities than differences to plasma cosmology, but often goes one step further, advocating more radical idea based on electricity and plasma in the cosmos. There was a thread here on it; http://www.internationalskeptics.com...d.php?t=101728 There is one documentary called "cosmology quest", which I think is available on youtube, which is mainly a critique of the Big Bang, and does have a small section on some plasma cosmology concepts right at the end.

Anyways, I'm all done for the day. Good night.

[DeiRenDopa]

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

Originally Posted by DeiRenDopa

Um, er, ...

Zeuzzz, that post you just wrote contains ~2,000 words, 2 (long) quotes, 3 links, and 11 references (each of which is a link). The 11 references include a 178 page book, and the entire proceedings of a summer workshop.

Would you mind posting a concise description of Plasma Cosmology, please?

No.

Could you please post a concise description of all the concepts behind modern mainstream cosmology, please?

Of course you cant.

What makes you so sure?

In any case, RC asked for a "concise description of Plasma Cosmology".

If I recall correctly, you are on record as saying that PC requires no physics beyond that found in any modern, standard, textbook.

So surely you have avoided addressing my post by means of a very common PC proponent tactic: change the subject.

No matter; I accept your challenge, and have generalised it, and made it public: Concise description of the Big Bang Theory (or ΛCDM models), possible? or not?

Quote:

I'm not falling into that trap. And I cant be bothered to spend my exam time copying and pasting material here because you're too lazy to explore any of the links I have provided you with. I've already spent too much time today with that previous post on the other thread, and this discussion is not going to be productive unless I have a chance to discuss PC in its entirety.

Just do some reading, and since you think that PC is soo woo, I expect you to return here with a long list of major scientific problems with all the peer reviewed publications in the links above. Incase you missed it;

.

Cool.

Here we go then.

I've read almost all of the material you have posted, both in this thread and in at least two others in the JREF forum.

I have been unable to find any material - at all - published since the first WMAP team papers presenting their results - on how PC accounts for the observed CMB, in the following respects:

1. the blackbody SED (spectral energy distribution)

2. the dipole

3. the angular power spectrum.

In each case, I mean the a quantitative account, with estimates of goodness of fit (or some other statistic), and explicit derivation from clearly stated, and with referenced sources, specific, PC cosmological model(s) being used.

If you know of any such materials, would you be kind enough to cite them?

If you do not know of any such materials, would you be kind enough to not waffle, obfuscate, do a dance, or otherwise avoid saying, simply, that you do not know of any such?

[Dancing David]

Sorry the Perrat article was from the World and I :the second one

:http://plasmascience.net/tpu/downloa...mology2W&I.pdf

I have to question saying that computer model are the way to observe EM forces as a distance, there should be direct observations as well.

And that does not mean comparing a toy model simulation to observation.

However he says not that there are not black holes but that he has suggested a means by which the effects can be produced without the black hole. Except for one thing, you still have the orbital mass observations that suggest black holes do exist. No reason you couldn't have plasma structures around a black hole either.

And the infamous galaxy rotation curves, his obtained by comparing the gravitational attraction and EM forces on electrons. gee are stars really just giant electrons? I think not. He also wimps out, he does not give a field strength to make his model work, he just suggests that it might. I think he too is afraid that the magnetic field that would have to exist has not been shown.

Yes to filamentary structures in the galaxy, yes to plasma. No to imaginary large scale magnetic fields that have not been observed yet, Low level magnetic fields that can organize weakly ionized hydrogen, yes. Magnetic field needed to cause the acceleration of a star, not shown as of yet.

And yet more citations of the disproven CMB study.

Hmm, what happened to the high frequency prediction of Perrat's after COBE was launched. Did they find it?

I will say that Perrat certainly shows a restraint and careful phrasing that his alleged followers do not. He uses 'may', 'suggests' and other cautious terms that his followers ignore. Many malign his obvious intelligence when they misquote him and abuse his caution.

[Wangler]

Originally Posted by Dancing David

And the infamous galaxy rotation curves, his obtained by comparing the gravitational attraction and EM forces on electrons. gee are stars really just giant electrons? I think not. He also wimps out, he does not give a field strength to make his model work, he just suggests that it might. I think he too is afraid that the magnetic field that would have to exist has not been shown.

I read somewhere that the galactic magnetic field (micro-gauss) could account for, at max, 10% of the rotation discrepancy.

[Reality Check]

It would have been nice to start the thread with a clear and concise description on what exactly Plasma Cosmology is from an expert, how it fits existing data and what falsifiable predictions it makes. However that does not seem likely to happen.

So lets start with Plasma Cosmology as researched by Anthony L. Perratt starting in about 1986.

Perratt observed that the universe is mostly plasma (99.999% of visible matter) and uses the existence of plasma filaments on various scales (laboratory to solar to possibly galactic) to postulate that there are cosmic plasma filaments. These filaments have Birkeland currents running through them. They are assumed to be close enough to interact but since the two closest interact most strongly he starts with a model with 2 adjacent current-conducting plasma filaments. Computer simulations of the model were then run to produce 2-D maps of the interacting filaments (i.e. a slice through them at some point).
The maps evolve from the 2 disks of the filaments to maps that look like double radio galaxies and then to more ordinary galaxies (elliptical, spiral and barred).



The predictions of the model are (based on the September 1989 article in Natural Science):

1. There will be filaments of the order of a billion light years in the universe.
2. There will be filamentary magnetized structures in our galaxy.
3. Galaxies will contain highly ordered magnetic fields stretching for tens of thousands of light years.
4. The Plasma Cosmology simulation model gives a background of microwaves with an energy density very nearly equal to that observed from the CMB. A further prediction is "that the cosmic microwave background from synchrotron sources will be found to have a distribution of radiation energy at higher frequencies that differs from the Big Bang model".
5. The rotational velocities of galaxies can be explained by Plasma Cosmology without the need for dark matter.

The direct observation of dark matter falsifies the last prediction and thus the model.

The CMB fit was before the COBE and WMAP observations and so without the details that we have now. As Dancing David says it would be interesting to find out what the state if the model's prediction is now.

[The Atheist]

Not until now, 35 years after the event, do I understand why I should have listened in physics instead of playing battleships with my mate. (who also failed)

Excellent link, RC.

[BenBurch]

It the very DEFINITION of woo.

[DeiRenDopa]

Re a description, concise or otherwise, of 'plasma cosmology' (PC).

iantresman, who has posted in this section of this forum as recently as a month or two ago, is an open proponent of PC. He has said, many times, that the term is not at all precise, being used by different people (and sometimes the same people, at different times*) to cover a wide range of ideas, approaches, theories, etc.

I think it may be useful to distinguish two different levels on which proponents of PC operate:

1) specific, concrete models, theories, etc on the origin, evolution, composition, structure, and the main physical mechanisms (or processes) that give (and/or gave) rise to what we observe today.

2) the nature of scientific discovery, of legitimate methods and approaches; the characteristics of acceptable reasoning, logic, etc; the role of physics and astronomy in addressing questions about the nature of the observable universe.

Particularly confusing to an attempt to understand PC is the tendency of many proponents to be quite indiscriminate about what models etc to include (examining PC at level 1, above): you can easily find stuff straight from standard (space science) textbooks for example on the solar wind, on the Jovian magnetosphere, on jets; just as easily you can find stuff from the remotest regions of woo-land, for example on the Columbia Shuttle being downed by a mega-lightning bolt from space, on stone carvings being faithful representations of giant historical atmospheric plasma phenomena which, scaled up, were also responsible for the creation of Venus ('birthed' from Jupiter) - it's all 'plasma cosmology' to some proponents.

PC proponents (most of them anyway) don't seem to have a problem with the extraordinary internal inconsistencies that accepting (say) textbook models of the Io plasma torus as well as Peratt's model for galaxy rotation curves as well as lightning bolts being the cause of lunar craters as well as the Sun being powered by giant, galaxy-wide currents ... entail. Why? I think it's because most such proponent are also working within a framework that differs significantly from that of contemporary physics (and geology and astronomy and ...); level 2 in other words. Some consciously and explicitly acknowledge this; most vehemently deny it. I think the origins of this split with modern science can be traced to Alfvén's own work on cosmology, and this may be an interesting discussion to have. Of course, Alfvén was far too good a scientist to have ever presented much of the PC material that Zeuzzz (to take just one example) is perfectly happy to spam JREF forum threads with, and if we could transport a younger Alfvén through time to today and give him a week or so to read the last decade or two's landmark papers on cosmology, who knows how different his views would be?

Just two aspects of PC, at level 2:

- there's a strong tendency to employ the logic of false dichotomy: {this set of observations} can't be explained using ΛCDM models, THEREFORE plasma cosmology MUST be right!!!

- effects (mechanisms, processes) not yet demonstrated in labs here on Earth do not exist, so, for example, black holes and neutron stars cannot. That this approach is deployed in a highly selective way (for example, most PC proponents embrace Arp with open arms, despite the fact that no Arpian 'intrinsic redshift' has ever been demonstrated in a lab) is also a feature of the woo part of PC.

* and, in the case of Zeuzzz, per the record of his posts here, even at the same time!

[Dancing David]

Perrat's Endless Plasma Sea
http://plasmascience.net/tpu/downloa...-Natur1990.pdf

Alas it appears to be in German or Dutch!

Now for Plasma Cosmology:
http://plasmascience.net/tpu/downloa...logyPeratt.pdf

Reasonable radio survey of plasma filiament.
Claim that the Wolf effect could produce a lengthened redshift in QSOs.
Suggestion that filaments could make the CMB
Mention of Olber's paradox.
Some interesting pictures.

No real predictions, no real data, some supercomputing.

[Dancing David]

Not with a Bang :
http://plasmascience.net/tpu/downloads/NotWithaBang.pdf

Blah, very poetic to start:

Discussion of Jupiter, Io and saturn, all accepted by the mainstream (as is the aurora)
Allsuon to synchroton radiation and filaments
The double lobed radio galaxy, yet again, and over and over. (Total ignoring of any of the orbital evidence for black holes.) But gosh while there may be jets there is this one experiment he did and the computer simulation. Bogus assertion about redshift.
Interesting discussion of galactic magnetic fields. Discussion of observed plasma tubes and filaments. (Not the imaginary stuff sime people blame on Perrat and Birkeland)
Kind of stretches that data to say there must be these huge unobserved currents and magnetic fields. More stretching of data about super clusters looking sort of like a filament.
Reasonable discussion of possible plasma effects in the early universe. Ooops, never eneding universe.
Very silly discussion of redshift.
Still talking about one bad data set on the CMB.
Claim made that the PU/PC says that there could be a uniform CMB. Since disproven?
Further unsupported assertion that his model provides for galaxy rotation curves, no discussion of events, scaling and observations. just assertion.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Originally Posted by Reality Check

The direct observation of dark matter falsifies the last prediction and thus the model.

That is not evidence of Dark Matter. That is taking an observation and incorporating the idea of Dark Matter into the observation as an explaination.

[joobz]

Originally Posted by JEROME DA GNOME

That is not evidence of Dark Matter. That is taking an observation and incorporating the idea of Dark Matter into the observation as an explaination.

Feel free to provide a counter hypothesis that also explains the observation.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Originally Posted by joobz

Feel free to provide a counter hypothesis that also explains the observation.

You are still not understanding science. Not knowing the correct answer does not mean that the made-up gnome answer is correct. This is why BBT theology is not science. Science should be looking for explanations, not making up magical unmeasurable gnomes to support a faith.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Originally Posted by joobz

Feel free to provide a counter hypothesis that also explains the observation.

Futher, there is nothing in that link that does anything more than state---LOOK! IT IS DARK MATTER!!!

[DeiRenDopa]

Originally Posted by JEROME DA GNOME

Originally Posted by Reality Check

The direct observation of dark matter falsifies the last prediction and thus the model.

That is not evidence of Dark Matter. That is taking an observation and incorporating the idea of Dark Matter into the observation as an explaination.

Um, er, ...

Haven't you just said that no astronomical observation is evidence for anything (other than the vanilla detection of photons/electromagnetic radiation)?

{insert image of star here} is taking an observation and incorporating the idea of {insert description here, involving self-gravitating mass of H, He, etc held from collapsing by nuclear fusion in the core, etc ...} into the observation as an explaination [sic].

Or did I miss some vital part of the JEROME DA GNOME alternative approach to how astronomy, astrophysics, and cosmology is done?

[joobz]

Originally Posted by JEROME DA GNOME

Futher, there is nothing in that link that does anything more than state---LOOK! IT IS DARK MATTER!!!

perhaps, but it describes the event that was observed. Again, if you have a counter hypothesis that doesn't require the invention of a hypothetical state of matter, provide it. Otherwise, it's the best option we have right now.

[DeiRenDopa]

Originally Posted by JEROME DA GNOME

You are still not understanding science. Not knowing the correct answer does not mean that the made-up gnome answer is correct. This is why BBT theology is not science. Science should be looking for explanations, not making up magical unmeasurable gnomes to support a faith.

OK, so ...

... what, in JEROME DA GNOME version of the branches of science called 'astronomy', 'astrophysics', and 'cosmology' constitutes an 'explanation'?

What criteria should one use, per JEROME DA GNOME science, to determine if something is an 'explanation' (of some astronomical observation) or not?

Hopefully, these criteria will be objective and can be applied independently and consistently ...

[Gate2501]

Originally Posted by JEROME DA GNOME

You are still not understanding science. Not knowing the correct answer does not mean that the made-up gnome answer is correct. This is why BBT theology is not science. Science should be looking for explanations, not making up magical unmeasurable gnomes to support a faith.

I think that you need to stop your anti BBT crusade for a second and look at what the science actually says.

All of the evidence that we can gather points to a big bang occurring. It does not describe what happened prior to this moment, nor does it describe how such a singularity was/is possible.

There has been many a hypothesis describing possible explanations, and you seem to latch onto these, such as the *t=0/big bang came from nothing* bit in the other thread, and use this as a straw man to attack all Big Bang Cosmology.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Originally Posted by DeiRenDopa

Um, er, ...

Haven't you just said that no astronomical observation is evidence for anything (other than the vanilla detection of photons/electromagnetic radiation)?

No I never said that.

Is that how you hold onto your faith?

Lie about those that disagree.


Why is it that my simple thoughts can not be countered? Is that it because the majority here are just pretending to understand thier beliefs and truly have no understanding of what the preists have told them?

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Originally Posted by Gate2501

All of the evidence that we can gather points to a big bang occurring.

This is just not true.

[Gate2501]

Originally Posted by JEROME DA GNOME

This is just not true.

The problem with you, Jerome, is that even if I present all of the evidence (as others have done in other threads), you will fall back on your argument that scientists are dogmatic followers of various mainstream theories.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Originally Posted by Gate2501

The problem with you, Jerome, is that even if I present all of the evidence (as others have done in other threads), you will fall back on your argument that scientists are dogmatic followers of various mainstream theories.

The chorus of "Evidence has been presented!!!" does not make it true that evidence has been presented.

Sorry about that. I feel sad for those that regurgitate lies.


Please show where the evidence has been presented.

[sol invictus]

Do you also think stars are little holes in the roof, letting a bit of light through?

[Gate2501]

Originally Posted by JEROME DA GNOME

The chorus of "Evidence has been presented!!!" does not make it true that evidence has been presented.

Sorry about that. I feel sad for those that regurgitate lies.


Please show where the evidence has been presented.

How about you go to www.wikipedia.com.

Type in "Big Bang Theory".

Read the cited sources in the areas that you believe to be incorrect/false.

If you hold the opinion to be true that there is some massive conspiracy or quasi-religious belief in the scientific community, the purpose of which is to hold back competing theories, you are going to deflect any possible evidence based on that belief. This kind of thinking is a free ticket to justify ANY sort of pseudo-scientific theory that you could concoct.

[joobz]

Originally Posted by JEROME DA GNOME

The chorus of "Evidence has been presented!!!" does not make it true that evidence has been presented.

Sorry about that. I feel sad for those that regurgitate lies.


Please show where the evidence has been presented.

yawn. Shall I present the evidence that you don't actually bother reading the sources of evidence?

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Originally Posted by joobz

yawn. Shall I present the evidence that you don't actually bother reading the sources of evidence?

I read everything presented. That is how I know the flaws in the so-called evidences, which when I point them out are just hand-waved away and the chorus begins once again.


Please present evidence.

[DeiRenDopa]

Originally Posted by JEROME DA GNOME

No I never said that.

Is that how you hold onto your faith?

Lie about those that disagree.


Why is it that my simple thoughts can not be countered? Is that it because the majority here are just pretending to understand thier beliefs and truly have no understanding of what the preists have told them?

Okey dokey, let's follow the breadcrumbs, shall we?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reality Check: The direct observation of dark matter falsifies the last prediction and thus the model.

JEROME DA GNOME: That is not evidence of Dark Matter. That is taking an observation and incorporating the idea of Dark Matter into the observation as an explaination.

DeiRenDopa: Um, er, ...

Haven't you just said that no astronomical observation is evidence for anything (other than the vanilla detection of photons/electromagnetic radiation)?

{insert image of star here} is taking an observation and incorporating the idea of {insert description here, involving self-gravitating mass of H, He, etc held from collapsing by nuclear fusion in the core, etc ...} into the observation as an explaination [sic].

Or did I miss some vital part of the JEROME DA GNOME alternative approach to how astronomy, astrophysics, and cosmology is done?

JEROME DA GNOME (selectively quoting DRD): No I never said that.

Is that how you hold onto your faith?

Lie about those that disagree.

Why is it that my simple thoughts can not be countered? Is that it because the majority here are just pretending to understand thier beliefs and truly have no understanding of what the preists have told them?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A poor, ignorant soul seeks enlightenment, oh wise one; may this seeker be blessed by a few more moments of your precious time? May I ask that you answer two other of my questions?

Here they are again (I've added numbers):

1) What, in your esteemed vision of the branches of science called 'astronomy', 'astrophysics', and 'cosmology' constitutes an 'explanation'?

2) What criteria should one use, per your exulted science, to determine if something is an 'explanation' (of some astronomical observation) or not?

[DeiRenDopa]

Originally Posted by JEROME DA GNOME

... snip ...

Please present evidence.

Sure thing ...

But first, if you don't mind, what is it that you regard as 'evidence'?

How do you make a determination that something (an astronomical observation, say) is 'evidence' or not?

If you could spare me the effort, could you walk me through the process you use, in some detail; taking a specific, astronomical observation as a concrete example would help greatly too ...

[DeiRenDopa]

Originally Posted by JEROME DA GNOME

No I never said that.

Is that how you hold onto your faith?

Lie about those that disagree.


Why is it that my simple thoughts can not be countered? Is that it because the majority here are just pretending to understand thier beliefs and truly have no understanding of what the preists have told them?

But surely you see my confusion?

I tried to put what you wrote into a one-to-one correspondence with something I thought would be mutually agreed (that stars, well most stars, are gravitationally bound balls of gas (mostly H and He), and which do not suffer collapse because they are hot (and that the heat which creates the (gas) pressure comes from nuclear fusion in their cores)).

The 'observation' would be seeing a star in the night sky (Sirius, say, or Alpha Cen).

the 'idea of' would be 'ball of gas held up against gravitational collapse by pressure derived ultimately from fusion'.

'incorporating' would be something like what you find in the pages of standard astrophysics textbooks, computer codes of models of stars, and so on.

How - in some deep and fundamental way - does this differ from the observational evidence for CDM?

[joobz]

Originally Posted by JEROME DA GNOME

I read everything presented.

Yet you do not read the things you present?
Sorry, I have no reason to believe you.

[MattusMaximus]

Originally Posted by JEROME DA GNOME

You are still not understanding science. Not knowing the correct answer does not mean that the made-up gnome answer is correct. This is why BBT theology is not science. Science should be looking for explanations, not making up magical unmeasurable gnomes to support a faith.

Originally Posted by JEROME DA GNOME

Please show where the evidence has been presented.

Evidence for the Big Bang

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by JEROME DA GNOME

The chorus of "Evidence has been presented!!!" does not make it true that evidence has been presented.

Sorry about that. I feel sad for those that regurgitate lies.


Please show where the evidence has been presented.

Just for conversations sake, and that is my goal. Let us start with black holes. How do you feel about them. As an implied part of general relativity and then as a candidate for a large massive object in a very small area (as hypothesized from say the orbits of stars at the center of our galaxy).

Jerome, it is fine to doubt dark matter and that is cool, yet there are some things that might need an explanation. Such as why star cluster orbit the galaxy faster than they should. Now currently MOND might explain that but it has some other problems and the PC/PU stuff just doesn't cut it for the outer stars clusters. So which one do you prefer, the dark matter or modified gravity? Or do you have an alternate like Perrat's model that you prefer?

[Reality Check]

Originally Posted by JEROME DA GNOME

That is not evidence of Dark Matter. That is taking an observation and incorporating the idea of Dark Matter into the observation as an explaination.

It is evidence of a type of matter that

1. Does not interact strongly with normal matter since it has been separated from the normal matter during the collision.
2. Does not emit radiation.

At no point are the properties of Dark Matter used in the observation. It is all standard astronomy.

So now we have 2 choices. We can say that this is Dark Matter or we can follow Jerome and say that is is not Dark Matter but another kind of matter.

Congratulations Jerome - you have discovered a new kind of matter !