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://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3667976&postcount=86

And this wikipedia page; http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Plasma_cosmology&oldid=88919194#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]

... 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.This post I just wrote may act as a good starting point; http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...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]

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;

This post I just wrote may act as a good starting point; http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3667976&postcount=86

And this wikipedia page; http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Plasma_cosmology&oldid=88919194#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]

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!

V026kSw4XCs

(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/downloads/PerattPlasmaCosmology1W&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

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]

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!

V026kSw4XCs

(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://forums.randi.org/showthread.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]

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? (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=112668)


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/downloads/PerattPlasmaCosmology2W&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]

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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birkeland_current) 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):
There will be filaments of the order of a billion light years in the universe.
There will be filamentary magnetized structures in our galaxy.
Galaxies will contain highly ordered magnetic fields stretching for tens of thousands of light years.
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".
The rotational velocities of galaxies can be explained by Plasma Cosmology without the need for dark matter.The direct observation of dark matter (http://chandra.harvard.edu/photo/2006/1e0657/) 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! :eek:

[Dancing David]

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

Alas it appears to be in German or Dutch!

Now for Plasma Cosmology:
http://plasmascience.net/tpu/downloads/CosmologyPeratt.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]

The direct observation of dark matter (http://chandra.harvard.edu/photo/2006/1e0657/) 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

This is just not true.

[Gate2501]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3673267&postcount=22), 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]

... 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]

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]

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

[MattusMaximus]

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.


http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/774747dc5f01571c1.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=11269)



Please show where the evidence has been presented.


Evidence for the Big Bang (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html)

[Dancing David]

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]

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
Does not interact strongly with normal matter since it has been separated from the normal matter during the collision.
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 :rolleyes: !

[Reality Check]

Futher, there is nothing in that link that does anything more than state---LOOK! IT IS DARK MATTER!!!
If you want to have a look at the paper that is the basis for the article then here it is: A Direct Empirical Proof of the Existence of Dark Matter (http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0608407).

What else did you expect it to say --- LOOK! IT IS SWISS CHEESE!!!:D

[Zeuzzz]

If you want to have a look at the paper that is the basis for the article then here it is: A Direct Empirical Proof of the Existence of Dark Matter (http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0608407).

What else did you expect it to say --- LOOK! IT IS SWISS CHEESE!!!:D


Yes. Quite. I suppose that the title alone did it for you?

On the possible existence of “dark matter” you may have seen headlines about a recent “proof” of dark matter based on data from a collision of galaxies. The title of the paper, to be published in the prestigious Astrophysical Journal, is “A direct empirical proof of the existence of dark matter” (Clowe et al., 2006). Upon reading this title, I became immediately suspicious because, as philosopher of science James Hall states, “Our hypotheses may get support or they may go down in flames, but they never, ever get proved”. The paper features some impressive technical discussion, but contains no discussion of some critical caveats. In particular, the argument assumes that normal matter is fully accounted for by the inventory of visible stars and hot plasmas. However, it has been reported that non-visible interstellar gas, lower-energy plasmas and brown dwarfs, in combination, likely exceed luminous stars in the local mass budget of our own galaxy (e.g., Fuchs, 2006 ref; http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998A&A...339..405F).



Also, Burbidge notes that “none of this [elaborate theory] is necessary if we go back to the original observation of the He/H ratio and take the position that the observed ratio is the result of hydrogen burning in stars. Then of course, the whole of the mass must be baryonic.” Burbidge then goes through a brief calculation that leads to black body radiation with T~ 2.75° K, which is very close to the measured value of 2.726° K. On this point, Burbidge concludes that “This is either a pure coincidence as it must be for those who believe in the big bang, or else it tells us that hydrogen burning was originally responsible for the [Cosmic Background Radiation] CMB” (Burbidge, 2005, ref; http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006cic..book....3B). Burbidge also calls attention to several non-BB estimates for CMB. A simple average of six such estimates made prior to the famed Penzias and Wilson measurement of 1965 yields ~3.1° K. In contrast, BB estimates by Gamow and collaborators ranged from 5 to 50° K (Assis and Neves, 1995, ref; History of the 2.7 K Temperature Prior to Penzias and Wilson (2001) (http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/assis01history.html) (full text (http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/Pre2001/V02NO3PDF/V02N3ASS.PDF))). The typical textbook account describes Gamow’s BB “prediction” and the 1965 “confirmation” without reference to this history; the real story is far more complicated.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Evidence for the Big Bang (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html)

A list with made-up things like Dark Matter and Dark Energy is suspect.

Is there any particular evidence on this list that you find evidences BBT in your mind?


* a) Large-scale homogeneity
* b) Hubble diagram
* c) Abundances of light elements
* d) Existence of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation
* e) Fluctuations in the CMBR
* f) Large-scale structure of the universe
* g) Age of stars
* h) Evolution of galaxies
* i) Time dilation in supernova brightness curves
* j) Tolman tests
* k) Sunyaev-Zel'dovich effect
* l) Integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect
* m) Dark Matter
* n) Dark Energy
* z) Consistency

[JEROME DA GNOME]

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).

Black holes are another made-up thought with no evidence. This idea seems to fit well with the BBT thus it is kept. Gravity is not strong enough and as such we need make-believe things to account for certain observations.


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?

Please define your acronyms.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

If you want to have a look at the paper that is the basis for the article then here it is: A Direct Empirical Proof of the Existence of Dark Matter (http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0608407).


Just WOW.

A paper stating that the unexplained is the make-believe Dark Matter.

:boxedin:

[MattusMaximus]

A list with made-up things like Dark Matter and Dark Energy is suspect.


Okaaaay... I'm guessing that you didn't really take any time to read that link, seeing as how you so quickly dismissed it.


Is there any particular evidence on this list that you find evidences BBT in your mind?


Uh, you asked for the evidence, and I gave you some. You should read it - I'm not going to do your homework for you.

If you're going to ask for evidence and then summarily dismiss it without even reading up on it, just don't ask in the first place. It simply wastes everyone's time.

[MattusMaximus]

Black holes are another made-up thought with no evidence. This idea seems to fit well with the BBT thus it is kept. Gravity is not strong enough and as such we need make-believe things to account for certain observations.



I have decided to no longer pay any attention to Jerome, as it is clear to me now that he is simply "make believe" :D

I mean, c'mon, we all know gnomes aren't real ;)

[Dancing David]

Plasma Atsrophysics and Cosmology
http://plasmascience.net/tpu/downloads/PrincetonEditorial.1993.pdf

Discussion of history (and a sly insertion of the redshift which is just an assertion)
Discussion of workshop topics
So kind of an overview without any substance.

[Dancing David]

Black holes are another made-up thought with no evidence. This idea seems to fit well with the BBT thus it is kept. Gravity is not strong enough and as such we need make-believe things to account for certain observations.

I am not talking about dark matter here, just the black holes: I understand the issues some people have with dark matter (although I don't agree) but on the issue of black holes I am just interested in the train of thought involved, I admit that all acience is just thought and that is an issue, but it always brings me back to my statement that science is just a means for approximating the behavior of reality. So the theories never really point to truth, they just try to predict and give possible explanations.

So black holes:
-How do you feel about the alleged explanation for the bending of light rays in a gravitational field? This has been observeed in a number of ways and is one possible explanation for the observed phenomena. IE that photons paths are deflected by gravitational fields.
-If powerfull gravitational fields exist, say for a mass of 200 suns, what might keep the material from being compressed into a neutron star when the fusion process ends? If you are not cool with neutron stars.
-What do you think would comprise an object that has an appatrent mass of 20,000 suns and is an area less than 43 AU in diameter? And has an upward limit of 300,000 solar masses.





Please define your acronyms.

PC/PU is plasma cosmology/plasma universe, MOND is modified newtonian dynamics and Perrat suggests that there are these huge magnetic fields which cause the extra acceleration in the orbits of stars in galaxies.

So what i am asking is this, if you don't like dark matter, then what is your preference (if you have one for an explanation) of the observed orbital velocity of stars around galaxies?

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Plasma Atsrophysics and Cosmology
http://plasmascience.net/tpu/downloads/PrincetonEditorial.1993.pdf

Discussion of history (and a sly insertion of the redshift which is just an assertion)
Discussion of workshop topics
So kind of an overview without any substance.

What do you think about the anomalies in the redshift observed in galaxies such as NGC 7603 (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004A&A...421..407L)?

[joobz]

What do you think about the anomalies in the redshift observed in galaxies such as NGC 7603 (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004A&A...421..407L)?
what do you think about it?

[Reality Check]

What do you think about the anomalies in the redshift observed in galaxies such as NGC 7603 (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004A&A...421..407L)?
NGC 7603 does not have a redshift anomoly. Pleaese quote the sentence in the paper thst states that the NGC 7603 galaxy itself has a redshift anomoly.

[joobz]

NGC 7603 does not have a redshift anomoly. Pleaese quote the sentence in the paper thst states that the NGC 7603 galaxy itself has a redshift anomoly.
Not only does Jerome not read the papers, It seems that it's an example of not even reading the abstract.

[Foster Zygote]

What do you think about the anomalies in the redshift observed in galaxies such as NGC 7603 (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004A&A...421..407L)?

To demonstrate to us that you understand the data you've presented perhaps you could summarize the "several explanations in terms of cosmological or non-cosmological redshifts" which are discussed.

[DeiRenDopa]

What do you think about the anomalies in the redshift observed in galaxies such as NGC 7603 (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004A&A...421..407L)?JEROME,

May I infer from this post of yours that the methods the authors of this paper used - in making the observations, reducing the data, analysing it, and drawing conclusions from that analysis - are acceptable, to you, as a means of going from "observation" to "evidence"?

[DeiRenDopa]

In any case, what does all this new stuff, in this thread, have to do with its stated intent ("Plasma Cosmology - Woo or not")? Is JEROME a serial thread-jacker?

Is JEROME in cahoots with Zeuzzz to create (yet another) diversion?

Is this a sneaky, under-hand, tactic to avoid sharp questions being asked about the woo nature of 'Plasma Cosmology' (and, FSM forfend, actually answering such questions)?

[JEROME DA GNOME]

NGC 7603 does not have a redshift anomoly. Pleaese quote the sentence in the paper thst states that the NGC 7603 galaxy itself has a redshift anomoly.

:dl:

[JEROME DA GNOME]

In any case, what does all this new stuff, in this thread, have to do with its stated intent ("Plasma Cosmology - Woo or not")? Is JEROME a serial thread-jacker?

Is JEROME in cahoots with Zeuzzz to create (yet another) diversion?

Is this a sneaky, under-hand, tactic to avoid sharp questions being asked about the woo nature of 'Plasma Cosmology' (and, FSM forfend, actually answering such questions)?

It is very revealing that you do not understand how redshift anomalies have relevance to this topic.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

PC/PU is plasma cosmology/plasma universe, MOND is modified newtonian dynamics and Perrat suggests that there are these huge magnetic fields which cause the extra acceleration in the orbits of stars in galaxies.

So what i am asking is this, if you don't like dark matter, then what is your preference (if you have one for an explanation) of the observed orbital velocity of stars around galaxies?

I do not have a preference. I do not need one to discount a theory like BBT which is constantly adding new make-believe factors to correlate the data with the theory. What is it now according to the thoery, 99% of the universe is made up of Dark-Matter and Dark-Energy?

[Dancing David]

What do you think about the anomalies in the redshift observed in galaxies such as NGC 7603 (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004A&A...421..407L)?

I would say that there is little reason at this point to not assume that there is interaction between the different objects. When there is data that suggests such interaction then it will be much more interesting. However the use of statistics by Arp (Gutierez following suit) in this fashion is abysmal there is no reason that I find compelling to think these objects are not just opticaly aligned.

When they present better evidence then I will find it very interesting.

[DoubtingStephen]

I looked on the back of our Plasma TV, it says it was made in Japan.

[Dancing David]

I do not have a preference. I do not need one to discount a theory like BBT which is constantly adding new make-believe factors to correlate the data with the theory. What is it now according to the thoery, 99% of the universe is made up of Dark-Matter and Dark-Energy?


:cool: I was just curious. Thanks.

[Olowkow]

It really doesn't matter much what one calls a phenomenon in physics. Some people still use "air waves" to speak of radio transmissions. "Ether" was a very useful concept until it was proven not to be necessary in a description of the universe. "Black hole", "dark matter", and "big bang" are nice images, and simply a means of providing for discussion and description of concepts that have not been completely understood. "Proving dark matter exists" is a loaded statement, perhaps it would be better to say "some sort of matter, unlike baryonic matter exists (and we have proof), let's call it 'dark matter' for the time being." So call it "X" stuff! Claiming that what has been observed has not really been observed is just silly.

[DeiRenDopa]

It is very revealing that you do not understand how redshift anomalies have relevance to this topic.It is?

Would you mind taking a few minutes to explain why?

I mean, as far as I know:

a) there has been no concise description of Plasma Cosmology (PC) given in this thread, by a PC proponent ... so without that, who can way what relevance 'redshift anomalies' might have to the topic at hand (or not)?

b) no one has attempted to draw a link (of any kind) between the research programme(s) of the authors of that paper and PC ... certainly no one in this thread has.

For the record, I also note that your earlier statement, about responding to the vast majority of posts, seems to be incompatible with your posting record ... at least as far as responding to my posts is concerned.

Also, it seems that you do not like to answer direct questions put to you, about the very ideas that you yourself have posted; why is that?

[DeiRenDopa]

NGC 7603 does not have a redshift anomoly. Pleaese quote the sentence in the paper thst states that the NGC 7603 galaxy itself has a redshift anomoly.:dl:I don't follow ...

Are you implying that, of course, the paper's authors do not claim NGC 7603 has a redshift anomaly?

Or that they do so claim, and that RC's reading comprehension is severely lacking?

I mean, it's pretty clear cut; you wrote the following words:What do you think about the anomalies in the redshift observed in galaxies such as NGC 7603?But as anyone who can read this kind of paper can clearly see, the authors say nothing about any redshift anomalies in the galaxy named NGC 7603.

I must say I really do have a lot of difficulty understanding what you write, JEROME; perhaps English is not (one of) your native tongue(s)?

[JEROME DA GNOME]

I don't follow ...

Are you implying that, of course, the paper's authors do not claim NGC 7603 has a redshift anomaly?

Or that they do so claim, and that RC's reading comprehension is severely lacking?

I mean, it's pretty clear cut; you wrote the following words:But as anyone who can read this kind of paper can clearly see, the authors say nothing about any redshift anomalies in the galaxy named NGC 7603.

I must say I really do have a lot of difficulty understanding what you write, JEROME; perhaps English is not (one of) your native tongue(s)?



Your interpertation is insane. Of course there is a redshift anomaly. If you can not understand this than you are truly blinded by faith and there is absolutely nothing that will cure this aliment.

Sorry. :o

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Would you mind taking a few minutes to explain why?

That would be because if the redshift does not denote time and distance than a large part of the foundation of our current understanding of the universe is incorrect.

:mgbanghead

[JEROME DA GNOME]

I would say that there is little reason at this point to not assume that there is interaction between the different objects. When there is data that suggests such interaction then it will be much more interesting. However the use of statistics by Arp (Gutierez following suit) in this fashion is abysmal there is no reason that I find compelling to think these objects are not just opticaly aligned.

Could you present a statistical analysis of the possibility for these four objects to be aligned such assuming that they are not part of the same whole?

[Foster Zygote]

To demonstrate to us that you understand the data you've presented perhaps you could summarize the "several explanations in terms of cosmological or non-cosmological redshifts" which are discussed.

Pretty please.

[joobz]

Your interpertation is insane. Of course there is a redshift anomaly. If you can not understand this than you are truly blinded by faith and there is absolutely nothing that will cure this aliment.

Sorry. :o

It's a completely fair question. Which redshifts are anamolous? How does this contradict the current theory and what does the authors propose as a solution to the anamolies?

I mean, this seems like a reasonable request. Afterall, you are convinced by their findings that it disproves BBT, I'd like to know what convinced you.

[robinson]

It's a completely fair question. Which redshifts are anamolous? How does this contradict the current theory and what does the authors propose as a solution to the anamolies?

anomalous

anomalies

[DeiRenDopa]

I don't follow ...

Are you implying that, of course, the paper's authors do not claim NGC 7603 has a redshift anomaly?

Or that they do so claim, and that RC's reading comprehension is severely lacking?

I mean, it's pretty clear cut; you wrote the following words:What do you think about the anomalies in the redshift observed in galaxies such as NGC 7603?But as anyone who can read this kind of paper can clearly see, the authors say nothing about any redshift anomalies in the galaxy named NGC 7603.

I must say I really do have a lot of difficulty understanding what you write, JEROME; perhaps English is not (one of) your native tongue(s)?Your interpertation is insane. Of course there is a redshift anomaly..
First, thank you for taking the time to respond to my post.

Second, would you please extend me the courtesy of responding to all the other posts I wrote (which, to date, you have not responded to)?

Third, if this is how you interpret the paper, concerning the redshift of NGC 7603, then I agree that one of us may well have an "insane" interpretation.

However, as I intend to show in a subsequent post, that "insane" interpretation is surely yours ... if only because even the authors of that paper do not consider the observed redshift of NGC 7603 to be anomalous.

Perhaps the explanation for the apparent mis-communication is clear? Maybe it's due to your misunderstanding of what the paper actually says?

If you are prepared to state that you are willing to go through that paper, sentence by sentence (if necessary), I am willing to take the time to show you how the authors of that paper are clear about the redshift of NGC 7603 not being anomalous.

If you are not prepared to so state, I have no interest in continuing this discussion (and shall regard you as a troll, and treat you accordingly).
. If you can not understand this than you are truly blinded by faith and there is absolutely nothing that will cure this aliment..
I read the words, but do not understand the meaning; would you be kind enough to elaborate please?

Specifically, what is the "faith" that you consider I am "blinded by"?
.

Sorry. :oMe too.

Sadly, I think the objective evidence is all but overwhelming that you are, like Zeuzzz, merely a troll.

I had hoped that there was something interesting in your railing, and (as someone else said) passionate argumentation, something that pointed to a possibly fruitful area of research that, somehow, just about every astronomer (astrophysicist, cosmologist, even plain physicist) for the last century or so had overlooked. The chances that this was so were always very slim, but now (it seems) non-existent.

[DeiRenDopa]

Would you mind taking a few minutes to explain why?That would be because if the redshift does not denote time and distance than a large part of the foundation of our current understanding of the universe is incorrect.

:mgbangheadIndeed.

However, what does that have to do with Plasma Cosmology (the explicit topic of this thread)?

Perhaps you are applying the logic of false dichotomy (something like: IF BBT is wrong, THEN Plasma Cosmology MUST BE RIGHT!!!!!!!!)?

Or am I missing something?

Here's the full context, just so that we don't lose sight of it (I've added bold, and [some editorial comments]):It is very revealing that you do not understand how redshift anomalies have relevance to this topic ['this topic' being Plasma Cosmology].
It is?

Would you mind taking a few minutes to explain why? [how 'redshift anomalies' are relevant to Plasma Cosmology]

I mean, as far as I know:

a) there has been no concise description of Plasma Cosmology (PC) given in this thread, by a PC proponent ... so without that, who can way what relevance 'redshift anomalies' might have to the topic at hand (or not)?

b) no one has attempted to draw a link (of any kind) between the research programme(s) of the authors of that paper and PC ... certainly no one in this thread has.

For the record, I also note that your earlier statement, about responding to the vast majority of posts, seems to be incompatible with your posting record ... at least as far as responding to my posts is concerned.

Also, it seems that you do not like to answer direct questions put to you, about the very ideas that you yourself have posted; why is that?

[MattusMaximus]

Perhaps you are applying the logic of false dichotomy (something like: IF BBT is wrong, THEN Plasma Cosmology MUST BE RIGHT!!!!!!!!)?



You mean the Plasma woosters are using a false dichotomy? Say it isn't so... :rolleyes:

The logic I'm seeing displayed here by the anti-BBT, pro-Plasma woosters is very similar to that displayed by ID-creationists when they try to tear down evolution.

Jerome, this is pretty basic stuff, and sadly you appear to be unable to grasp the concept (much like creationists refuse to or cannot grasp it): poking holes in someone else's theory in no way, shape or form does anything to advance your own theory.

Especially when your sad attempts to poke holes (in this case, in BBT) are so lacking.

[Dancing David]

Could you present a statistical analysis of the possibility for these four objects to be aligned such assuming that they are not part of the same whole?
That was their burden and responsibilty Jerome, not mine or anybody elses. they are claiming experiment and observation, but they are the ones who neglected the control group. So they are in error and at fault. No where else but in woo land do people ask other people to run the control group when they claim association.



They use a limited sample that is prone to sample error and sample bias. They use no control groups for representative samples. Therefore they are asserting an association or correlation when it could be just from random placement or 'noise'.

As I said Jerome, there is no evidence of interaction between the objects.

There are plenty of galaxies and plenty of QSOs, random [placement does not mean evenly distributed, it means random. And until a base line level of association is found, no meaningful correlation can be claimed.

Arp and Gutierez would be scorned for lack of control and representative sampling in any field that relies on correlation. And in fact they are not following what is standard protocol in census and representative sampling. (Or in astrophysics and astronomy) they are using a posteriori reasoning, which is an error. They would be laughed out of an epidemiological, social science or survey group for claiming a correlation but having done nothing to show it rises above noise level of occurrence.

If they had also sampled random points on the shy, random normative galaxies and could show that the level of association rose above one standard deviation, and better if two, and then they would have something.

But there paper would most likely not have been published in other fields.

They are the ones making the claim, but it is odd that they did not do the control research. That is a bad protocol and procedure. It would be like claiming you found an incidence of 1% occurrence of schizophrenia, without doing any research to find out what the 'normative' occurrence of schizophrenia is.

The use of a posteriori statistics is something that psychics and other scam artists use, it is shameful.

The burden is on NO NONR BUT THEM, this is science and they failed to do the control group, so they are the ones at fault. The burden is not on any one but them to show a control group.

How many scientists don't use controls, how many scientists ask other people to do the controls for them?

In fact here is a thread dedicated to this idea, in it many common uses of statitics are discussed and some very bad aposteriori statitics are demonstrated.

Arp and Gutierez can not claim association, they have no baseline or control groups, they would be laughed out of most fields that use statistics.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=107779

I really thought you were smarter than to ask that question jerome, because it oints out exactly why Arp is in wooville, when he could be in science. Might as well be the ganzfeld stuff, he is a great astronomer but a terrible user of staticts.

[Dancing David]

Indeed.

However, what does that have to do with Plasma Cosmology (the explicit topic of this thread)?

Perhaps you are applying the logic of false dichotomy (something like: IF BBT is wrong, THEN Plasma Cosmology MUST BE RIGHT!!!!!!!!)?

Or am I missing something?

Here's the full context, just so that we don't lose sight of it (I've added bold, and [some editorial comments]):


Sadly I begin to feel that Jerome is showing some tendencies which suprise me, doubting dark energy or dark matter , I understand, or black holes. But not knowing the difference between controls and no controls is shocking.

[joobz]

anomalous

anomalies
spelling schmelling:o

[Complexity]

Zeuzzz has yet to offer us any reason to invest any time in investigating 'Plasma Cosmology'.

Until he does so, I won't waste another moment of my life on the stuff.

I'm not concerned about missing anything.

[Corsair 115]

Black holes are another made-up thought with no evidence. This idea seems to fit well with the BBT thus it is kept.So you're saying Einstein, Hawking, Susskind, etc., are all wrong?

[Reality Check]

Black holes are another made-up thought with no evidence. This idea seems to fit well with the BBT thus it is kept. Gravity is not strong enough and as such we need make-believe things to account for certain observations.

I have started a thread for this topic so that this thread does not get derailed: JEROME - Black holes do not exist (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=112936)

[Zeuzzz]

Quite frankly, I expected better than this. I return here after a few days to see what people have been saying, and not one person commented on my comment at the top of this page (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3674297&postcount=42). Maybe because it was irrefutable information? about the often wrong quoted history about the CMB and the "predictions" that lead to acceptance of the "Big Bang" fairly tale? So it will just get added to the long list of ignored posts. Sigh.

And invalidating aspects of the Big Bang fairy tale does add credence to the basic premise of plasma cosmology, as the reasons always put forward to "refute" plasma cosmology are nearly always Big Bang material, so it works both ways. You cant use the Big Bang to falsify plasma cosmology, and then shout "false dichotomy" when we do it in return!

Lets see instead the reaction that my previous post provoked, a concrete scientific claim and historical context was put forward, and the reaction was as follows;

Is JEROME in cahoots with Zeuzzz to create (yet another) diversion?

Is this a sneaky, under-hand, tactic to avoid sharp questions being asked about the woo nature of 'Plasma Cosmology' (and, FSM forfend, actually answering such questions)?


That comment really progressed the discussion DRD. Well done.

Sadly, I think the objective evidence is all but overwhelming that you are, like Zeuzzz, merely a troll.

I had hoped that there was something interesting in your railing, and (as someone else said) passionate argumentation, something that pointed to a possibly fruitful area of research that, somehow, just about every astronomer (astrophysicist, cosmologist, even plain physicist) for the last century or so had overlooked. The chances that this was so were always very slim, but now (it seems) non-existent.


Another brillant contribution! really progressed the discussion! well done.


The logic I'm seeing displayed here by the anti-BBT, pro-Plasma woosters is very similar to that displayed by ID-creationists when they try to tear down evolution.

Jerome, this is pretty basic stuff, and sadly you appear to be unable to grasp the concept (much like creationists refuse to or cannot grasp it): poking holes in someone else's theory in no way, shape or form does anything to advance your own theory.

Especially when your sad attempts to poke holes (in this case, in BBT) are so lacking.


Frantic attempts to link plasma cosmology to creationists and ID'ers, whilst staunchly defending the biggest event of creation in history! The utter irony.


Zeuzzz has yet to offer us any reason to invest any time in investigating 'Plasma Cosmology'.

Until he does so, I won't waste another moment of my life on the stuff.

I'm not concerned about missing anything.


Hows about the post I wrote at the top of the page that you posted this very comment on? the one that no-one responded to? I'm not holding my breath. I wasn't expecting anything better from you, Complexity.

So you're saying Einstein, Hawking, Susskind, etc., are all wrong?


Shock! Horror! Had that possibility never occured to you? or is the faith that you put into authority figures such as them so blinding you are unable to grasp this idea at all? Blatent Argument from authority. I had expected better here.

Einstein was wrong about a great many things for example, so having the opinion that modern scientists are immune from making mistakes would be a ludicrous position to take.


Indeed.

However, what does that have to do with Plasma Cosmology (the explicit topic of this thread)?

Perhaps you are applying the logic of false dichotomy (something like: IF BBT is wrong, THEN Plasma Cosmology MUST BE RIGHT!!!!!!!!)?

Or am I missing something?


Why all the shouting? :D seems as if some people are getting angry. Surely, addressing the material that has proked a response such as this would be far better way to release this?

And yes, you do seem to missing something, like my post; http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3674297&postcount=42 that you ignored.

Well, I think that pretty much sums up the responce to my post; http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3674297&postcount=42 , unless i have missed the responce to it, in which case, someone please point it out.

I'm done from this forum for now. I can see that no matter what i post it will either be directly ignored, or just recieve a host of indirect angry responses. Theres no point me just adding the occasional daily comment I planned to if I dont have the time to defend my position from all the personal attacks that follow. Your tactics just reveal your true colors. The ony person who has remained reasonably civil is Dancing david, and possibly a few others. Over And Out.

[Reality Check]

Yes. Quite. I suppose that the title alone did it for you?

No. I was so impressed that I have the paper on my PC and have read it more then once. How many times have you read it?

You have this quote:
On the possible existence of “dark matter” you may have seen headlines about a recent “proof” of dark matter based on data from a collision of galaxies. The title of the paper, to be published in the prestigious Astrophysical Journal, is “A direct empirical proof of the existence of dark matter” (Clowe et al., 2006). Upon reading this title, I became immediately suspicious because, as philosopher of science James Hall states, “Our hypotheses may get support or they may go down in flames, but they never, ever get proved”. The paper features some impressive technical discussion, but contains no discussion of some critical caveats. In particular, the argument assumes that normal matter is fully accounted for by the inventory of visible stars and hot plasmas. However, it has been reported that non-visible interstellar gas, lower-energy plasmas and brown dwarfs, in combination, likely exceed luminous stars in the local mass budget of our own galaxy (e.g., Fuchs, 2006 ref;
...
With a link to this 1998 paper
The contribution of brown dwarfs to the local mass budget of the Galaxy (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998A&A...339..405F)
Where does the quote come from?

The observation is of the separation of a large amount of non-luminous matter from the luminous of the 1E0657−558 galactic cluster. Try reading the second papragraph in the introduction:
Given sufficient time, galaxies (whose stellar component makes up ∼ 1 − 2% of the mass (Kochanek et al. 2003) under the assumption of Newtonian gravity), plasma (∼ 5 − 15% of the mass (Allen et al. 2002; Vikhlinin et al. 2006)), and any dark matter in a typical cluster acquire similar, centrally-symmetric spatial distributions tracing the common gravitational potential. However, during a merger of two clusters, galaxies behave as collisionless particles, while the fluid-like X-ray emitting intracluster plasma experiences ram pressure. Therefore, in the course of a cluster collision, galaxies spatially decouple from the plasma. We clearly see this effect in the unique cluster 1E0657−558 (Tucker et al. 1998).

If you have a mechanism that can separate just the brown dwarfs, etc. from the galaxies then I suggest that inform the authors.

[The Atheist]

Quite frankly, I expected better than this.

Why?

You seem a lot like John Hewitt (http://freespace.virgin.net/john.hewitt1/), who came in here with a different take on evolution and was promptly labelled a "creationist/IDer". (which was completely wrong in his case also) John posted here just as John Hewitt, if you want to check out his reception, start at his first post and work forward - didn't take long.

I correspond with John and find alternatives fascinating. I'm far too ignorant to ever form an opinion on DM/DE or PC, but you make a good case and can back it up with substantial scientific opinion.

I personally like to see alternative, non-supernatural explanations for things we don't fully understand - right or wrong, at least you're making the opposition do their homework.

Will CERN's results (if any) be able to confirm or detract from your hypothesis?

I return here after a few days to see what people have been saying, and not one person commented on my comment at the top of this page (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3674297&postcount=42). Maybe because it was irrefutable information? about the often wrong quoted history about the CMB and the "predictions" that lead to acceptance of the "Big Bang" fairly tale? So it will just get added to the long list of ignored posts. Sigh.

Hey, I'll take the Fifth on that - I only haven't asked or answered anything so as not to make a complete arse of myself.

And invalidating aspects of the Big Bang fairy tale does add credence to the basic premise of plasma cosmology, as the reasons always put forward to "refute" plasma cosmology are nearly always Big Bang material, so it works both ways. You cant use the Big Bang to falsify plasma cosmology, and then shout "false dichotomy" when we do it in return!

Now, there might be a little pot/kettle going on there. The Big Bang "fairy tale"? If you want people to play nice, maybe showing a little respect for a scientific theory which has largely held water for a quarter of a century plus.

I'm done from this forum for now. I can see that no matter what i post it will either be directly ignored, or just recieve a host of indirect angry responses. Theres no point me just adding the occasional daily comment I planned to if I dont have the time to defend my position from all the personal attacks that follow. Your tactics just reveal your true colors. The ony person who has remained reasonably civil is Dancing david, and possibly a few others. Over And Out.

Well, this really is taking the soft option.

Here's a suggestion for you: rather than just walk away, if you believe in this stuff - as you clearly do - take a leaf out of John's book and ignore the snarky comments and stick to your plan of posting evidence. Maybe an "idiots' guide" would be helpful? During that, continue to interact with those posters who you feel are showing you the respect you're due and see how we go.

Your choice.

[Reality Check]

Quite frankly, I expected better than this. I return here after a few days to see what people have been saying, and not one person commented on my comment at the top of this page (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3674297&postcount=42).

See my last posting about your posting.


Maybe because it was irrefutable information? about the often wrong quoted history about the CMB and the "predictions" that lead to acceptance of the "Big Bang" fairly tale? So it will just get added to the long list of ignored posts. Sigh.

I agree that the CMB is not just a prediction of the BBT but that is not the topic of this thread.


And invalidating aspects of the Big Bang fairy tale does add credence to the basic premise of plasma cosmology, as the reasons always put forward to "refute" plasma cosmology are nearly always Big Bang material, so it works both ways. You cant use the Big Bang to falsify plasma cosmology, and then shout "false dichotomy" when we do it in return!

Actually you are wrong about false dichotomy. "Invalidating aspects of the Big Bang fairy tale" does not add credence to the basic premise of plasma cosmology. What it does is invalidate are aspects of BBT. That is all. It may add credence to other theories but not specifically PC.
Likewise "invalidating aspects of the Plasma Cosmology fairy tale" is not support for BBT.

Now back to the topic which is "Plasma Cosmology - Woo or not".

How important is Peratt's plasma model of galaxy formation to PC?
Can you tell us why we do not see plasma filaments extending from all galaxies?
I was under the impression that large currents in plasmas produce X-ray radiation and so they would be obvious in surveys such as the Chandra X-ray Observatory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chandra_X-ray_Observatory).

[sol invictus]

Here's a suggestion for you: rather than just walk away, if you believe in this stuff - as you clearly do - take a leaf out of John's book and ignore the snarky comments and stick to your plan of posting evidence. Maybe an "idiots' guide" would be helpful? During that, continue to interact with those posters who you feel are showing you the respect you're due and see how we go.


The trouble is that there is no such thing as plasma cosmology. There is a set of ideas, ranging from the totally ridiculous (the sun is powered by electricity) to the merely stupid (flat galactic rotation curves can be explained by electromagnetic forces) to phenomena not fully understood by anyone (solar flares) to the totally mundane (most matter in the universe is plasma).

Every single concrete idea which has been put forward - of which there have not been many - has either been debunked or turns out to be consistent with mainstream astrophysics. After the fact, Zeuzzz has then declared that those ideas weren't PC after all. Every attempt to get him to produce a concrete or quantitative prediction of PC has failed, largely I think because he recognizes that it will probably be shown false in short order, leaving him with few options.

So instead he continues making vague statements about PC, and spends most of his posts attacking aspects of the standard cosmological model (relying on the logic of false dichotomy: if the standard theory is wrong mine must be right - even though I don't have one).

He runs away whenever he gets too thoroughly trapped. For example we had a long discussion on magnetic reconnection - a standard and well understood phenomenon which he claimed violated Maxwell's equations. Since this was an extremely clear example, I decided that it would make a good test. If Zeuzzz couldn't learn or admit he was wrong about that, he never would about anything and there wasn't much point in conversation. After months of being bludgeoned with irrefutable experimental, theoretical, and numerical evidence, he had totally reversed his position - while denying he had changed at all. When confronted with proof in the form of his own old posts (internet fora are nice that way) he ran away, and has only been back rarely since.

[Dancing David]

spelling schmelling:o


Speeling schmeeling! :D

[Dancing David]

Quite frankly, I expected better than this. I return here after a few days to see what people have been saying, and not one person commented on my comment at the top of this page (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3674297&postcount=42). Maybe because it was irrefutable information? about the often wrong quoted history about the CMB and the "predictions" that lead to acceptance of the "Big Bang" fairly tale? So it will just get added to the long list of ignored posts. Sigh.

.


You are just as bad if not worse than BAC, I have been slowly reading through the sources you cited and then you come back and play the skanky sturmptet, you don't care that some people are reading and responding to your sources. You are just here to show off your body and try to start a fight, figures. :sigh: ;)

Noticable in the Perrat articles, continued citation of obe study, suggestions of CMB that are currently inaccurate, bad Arp statitics, assertion without justification that toy models scale to galactic theories. there is some good stuff, but these are the galring holes in Perrat's articles.

So i will continue to read your sources and then get to whatever your point was, meanwhile you can continue your pissing contest.

So the fact that Perrat made two predictions in his fairy tale that were unsupported means what?

[DeiRenDopa]

Quite frankly, I expected better than this. I return here after a few days to see what people have been saying, and not one person commented on my comment at the top of this page (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3674297&postcount=42). Maybe because it was irrefutable information?Um, ... er, ...

In a thread devoted to Plasma Cosmology (PC) (yes, I'm shouting, in the (vain?) hope you will pay attention), what does Burbidge's (personal) article have to do with PC?

If you won't take the time and trouble (in this thread) to say what you think PC actually is, and if (as others have pointed out) every time you got close to saying what it is (in other threads) you changed your tune, went off at tangents, etc, then what is it that we can actually discuss?
. about the often wrong quoted history about the CMB and the "predictions" that lead to acceptance of the "Big Bang" fairly tale?.
The history is interesting ... but it tells us little about how well the actual observations match one theory or another, and surely this is the more important thing to examine?

Further, even if Burbidge (or some other author) has a paper convincingly showing that the space density of starlight, averaged over a large enough volume, is equivalent to a ~3K blackbody, so what?

Unless and until you explicitly tie such a thing to Plasma Cosmology, what's the point of discussing it (in this thread)?
. So it will just get added to the long list of ignored posts. Sigh.

And invalidating aspects of the Big Bang fairy tale does add credence to the basic premise of plasma cosmology, as the reasons always put forward to "refute" plasma cosmology are nearly always Big Bang material, so it works both ways. You cant use the Big Bang to falsify plasma cosmology, and then shout "false dichotomy" when we do it in return!Huh? :confused:

I wasn't aware that anyone, in this thread, had put forward any reasons 'to "refute" plasma cosmology', much less ones that were based solely on 'Big Bang material' ... would you (or any other reader) be kind enough to point to posts which contain such reasons?
.
Lets see instead the reaction that my previous post provoked, a concrete scientific claim and historical context was put forward,

... snip ...Maybe; however, it had no connection to Plasma Cosmology, either explicit or implicit.Indeed.

However, what does that have to do with Plasma Cosmology (the explicit topic of this thread)?

Perhaps you are applying the logic of false dichotomy (something like: IF BBT is wrong, THEN Plasma Cosmology MUST BE RIGHT!!!!!!!!)?

Or am I missing something?
Why all the shouting? :D seems as if some people are getting angry. Surely, addressing the material that has proked a response such as this would be far better way to release this? Quite.

So, what's the connection between what you posted (in post#42) and Plasma Cosmology?

So, what's the connection between what you posted (in post#42) and Plasma Cosmology?

So, what's the connection between what you posted (in post#42) and Plasma Cosmology?

So, what's the connection between what you posted (in post#42) and Plasma Cosmology?

I seem to have missed that ...

And yes, you do seem to missing something, like my post; http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3674297&postcount=42 that you ignored.

Well, I think that pretty much sums up the responce to my post; http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3674297&postcount=42 , unless i have missed the responce to it, in which case, someone please point it out.I can't speak for anyone else, but ...

The reasons I ignored it were two: I was busy responding to other posts, and was going to get around to yours later; and your post seemed, to me, to have nothing to do with the explicit topic of this thread ... which is, in case you missed it, Plasma Cosmology.

Oh, and I should add that I find it rather odd that you say you're busy, yet have time to write posts that clearly required some time spent on collecting source material ... all the while ignoring all the other 'open items' that have followed from your earlier posts, both in this thread and (many) others.

I'm done from this forum for now. I can see that no matter what i post it will either be directly ignored, or just recieve a host of indirect angry responses. Theres no point me just adding the occasional daily comment I planned to if I dont have the time to defend my positionHuh? :confused:

I wasn't aware that you had a 'position' at all! At least, not one that concerns a concisely described alternative cosmology called 'Plasma Cosmology', much less any such based on standard scientific methods and approaches.

For the record, again, I think your 'occasional daily comment[s]' have been almost entirely seagull woo spam.
from all the personal attacks that follow. Your tactics just reveal your true colors. The ony person who has remained reasonably civil is Dancing david, and possibly a few others. Over And Out.Bye!

And good luck with those physics exams ...

[robinson]

Yes. Quite. I suppose that the title alone did it for you?



On the possible existence of “dark matter” you may have seen headlines about a recent “proof”
of dark matter based on data from a collision of galaxies. The title of the paper, to be published
in the prestigious Astrophysical Journal, is “A direct empirical proof of the existence of dark
matter” (Clowe et al., 2006). Upon reading this title, I became immediately suspicious because,
as philosopher of science James Hall states, “Our hypotheses may get support or they may go
down in flames, but they never, ever get proved” (Hall, 2005). The paper features some
impressive technical discussion, but contains no discussion of some critical caveats. In particular,
the argument assumes that normal matter is fully accounted for by the inventory of visible stars
and hot plasmas. However, it has been reported that non-visible interstellar gas, lower-energy
plasmas and brown dwarfs, in combination, likely exceed luminous stars in the local mass budget
of our own galaxy (e.g., Fuchs, Jahreiss, and Flynn, 2006).
http://www.ctr4process.org/programs/LSI/2006-Cosmology/EastmanT%20-%20Cosmic%20Agnosticism.pdf

There is the correct link to the source of the quote.

[Corsair 115]

Shock! Horror! Had that possibility never occured to you? or is the faith that you put into authority figures such as them so blinding you are unable to grasp this idea at all? Blatent Argument from authority. I had expected better here.Perhaps you can explain why those individuals, and many others, have not changed their minds.

Might it be because there is little convincing evidence to make them change their minds? Or are you simply writing off anyone who accepts the current dominant theories of cosmology as rigid ideologues who reject anything which contradicts their theories?

[MattusMaximus]

It is very revealing that you do not understand how redshift anomalies have relevance to this topic.


Has Jerome even defined what he means by "redshift anomaly"?

When confronted with such inanity as espoused here where claims are made but no definitions are provided, I'm reminded of Ben Stein's "Expelled" (http://www.expelledexposed.com), where he and the other creationists spend 90 minutes blathering on about "Darwinism" and "Intelligent Design" but never even provide definition for those terms.

Such mental masturbation may be interesting to watch, but it doesn't really accomplish anything beyond muddying the intellectual waters.

[MattusMaximus]

Perhaps you can explain why those individuals, and many others, have not changed their minds.



Corsair, the answer is so simple...

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_774747b777c3c3dce.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=10850)

[MattusMaximus]

Frantic attempts to link plasma cosmology to creationists and ID'ers, whilst staunchly defending the biggest event of creation in history! The utter irony.


And once again Zeuzzz misses the point. I was, of course, not calling him and the other Plasma woosters ID-creationists; I was merely making a comparison to the similarities between the tactics used by both Plasma woosters and ID-creationists. In fact, I'm beginning to see similar tactics used in the promotion of a whole host of various pseudo-sciences.


I'm done from this forum for now. I can see that no matter what i post it will either be directly ignored, or just recieve a host of indirect angry responses. Theres no point me just adding the occasional daily comment I planned to if I dont have the time to defend my position from all the personal attacks that follow. Your tactics just reveal your true colors. The ony person who has remained reasonably civil is Dancing david, and possibly a few others. Over And Out.


And yet he still won't answer Dancing David's questions. Hmmm... :rolleyes:

Wow, with such a thin skin, it is obvious that Zeuzzz wouldn't last two seconds in a real scientific forum. This is just some skeptic Internet blog and he can't handle the heat.

Good riddance.

[Tubbythin]

Quite frankly, I expected better than this. I return here after a few days to see what people have been saying, and not one person commented on my comment at the top of this page (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3674297&postcount=42). Maybe because it was irrefutable information? about the often wrong quoted history about the CMB and the "predictions" that lead to acceptance of the "Big Bang" fairly tale? So it will just get added to the long list of ignored posts. Sigh.
Talking about getting the history of the CMB wrong, care to comment on this ('http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3676253&postcount=245')?


And invalidating aspects of the Big Bang fairy tale
Calling it a fairy tale makes you sound like a troll. I suggest you cease.


does add credence to the basic premise of plasma cosmology, as the reasons always put forward to "refute" plasma cosmology are nearly always Big Bang material, so it works both ways. You cant use the Big Bang to falsify plasma cosmology, and then shout "false dichotomy" when we do it in return!
We don't. We use observational evidence. And btw the burden of proof is on you. If you want us to believe you are not just spouting woo then it is up to you to provide explanations of how your theory (whatever it really is) fits the observations and then give us testable predictions.


Frantic attempts to link plasma cosmology to creationists and ID'ers,
You don't think you sound like an IDer sometimes? Not even when you say things like this? ('http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3487177&postcount=6')


whilst staunchly defending the biggest event of creation in history! The utter irony.
Either there was a beginning or there wasn't. The evidence has been put forward that there was. If you object then give us the counter evidence.

Blatent Argument from authority. I had expected better here.
Speaking of irony ('http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3519260&postcount=313'). Or maybe its just rank hippocrasy ('http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3520953&postcount=336').

[The Atheist]

When confronted with proof in the form of his own old posts (internet fora are nice that way) he ran away, and has only been back rarely since.

That's what I was getting at - if he has something, leaving in a huff isn't going to convince anyone. If it's happened before as well, then it doesn't look too good.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Has Jerome even defined what he means by "redshift anomaly"?

If I present the data which evidences a redshift anomaly with NGC 7603 will you admit that redshift is not an accurate representation of time and distance?

[Corsair 115]

If I present the data which evidences a redshift anomaly with NGC 7603 will you admit that redshift is not an accurate representation of time and distance?How much data? One example of a problem in one study? Or a whole series of peer-reviewed studies indicating a great many anomalies?

[Tubbythin]

If I present the data which evidences a redshift anomaly with NGC 7603 will you admit that redshift is not an accurate representation of time and distance?

If by present you mean discuss in your own words a number of independent measurements presented in a number of peer reviewed articles in mainstream physics journals illustrating results that clearly conflict with the Big Bang model of the Universe
AND
You can aknowledge the strengths and limitations of the data, the errors involved and, where appropriate, can perform detailed (correct) statistical analysis.
AND
If you can show a firm grasp of the physics involved (including where necessary special and general relativity, particle and nuclear physics, quantum mechanics, electromagnetism, astronomy, cosmology, thermodynamics and statistical mechanics)
AND
If you will allow your presentation to be interrogated by anyone on the board and can succesfully defend your presentation from the interrogation.
Then the answer is yes.

If present means link to a single article and say BBT is clearly wrong without giving any explanation like you did earlier then the answer is no, of course not.

[Dancing David]

If I present the data which evidences a redshift anomaly with NGC 7603 will you admit that redshift is not an accurate representation of time and distance?


Only if I agree with the interpretation.

I do not agree with Arp's statitics in the least and a vague filament in alignment with a QSO, without any evidence that the QSO is interacting with the filament, means about as much as a finger pointing at the moon. Just because Saturn is occluded by the moon does not mean the moon touches Saturn.

You present, then each may decide, but please don't use Poisson distributions and aposteriori statistics.

[MattusMaximus]

If I present the data which evidences a redshift anomaly with NGC 7603 will you admit that redshift is not an accurate representation of time and distance?


Will you first provide a specific definition of what you mean by "redshift anomaly"?

No offense, but I really want to pin you down on this first, so as to avoid any potential goalpost moving in the future on this point.

[DeiRenDopa]

If I present the data which evidences a redshift anomaly with NGC 7603 will you admit that redshift is not an accurate representation of time and distance?Huh?

What is the connection between a "redshift anomaly", any redshift anomaly, and Plasma Cosmology?

In which widely cited, landmark Plasma Cosmology work is "redshift anomaly" presented and discussed?

In what papers, or other material, have M. López-Corredoira and C.M. Gutiérrez explained how "redshift anomaly" and Plasma Cosmology are related?

Where can one read more about NGC 7603 and Plasma Cosmology?

How do the fathers (there are no mothers, right?) of Plasma Cosmology describe the underlying physical mechanisms (a.k.a. processes) which give rise to redshifts, including "redshift anomalies"? In what papers, conference proceedings, books, etc do they provide the details?

[robinson]

Worst thread ever.

[DeiRenDopa]

Worst thread ever.Why do you say that?

I think this is a particularly good thread! :p

It has clearly shown just how weak this so-called alternative ("Plasma Cosmology") is, at least in terms of there being some clearly defined set of principles, approaches, models, theories, etc about cosmology.

It has also shown, with great clarity, how difficult the JREF forum's self-styled, physics trained, Plasma Cosmology (PC) fan (Zeuzzz) has found it to address simple, straight questions about the very topic he is on record, in many threads, as being so fervent about.

The promise of this thread is even greater. For example, if, some time in the future, a new ardent proponent of PC appears on the scene, the (then) old-hands can simply revive this thread, or start another in a similar vein.

That's quite an achievement for a thread with such a short life (so far), and so few posts (so far), don't you think?

[Dancing David]

Worst thread ever.
How is the Android's Dungeon?

;)

[Zeuzzz]

The promise of this thread is even greater. For example, if, some time in the future, a new ardent proponent of PC appears on the scene, the (then) old-hands can simply revive this thread, or start another in a similar vein.



I think I'll take the last option. This thread has already descended into the same pointless tit for tat argument that the discussion on magnetic reconnection ended in, with one side just ignoring what the other was saying, and both claiming they were right. The posts end up being a reaction to what has been said previously, as opposed to resolving the dispute. And my last post wasn't the most helpful, I've sobered up now :) not the best post to leave my position up in the air about....

And (not surprisingly) no-one seems to have noticed the paper that robinson quoted, which is very interesting and worth a read to anyone trying to assess the merits of alternative cosmologies beyond the Big Bang notion, and the possible future role of EM forces and plasma dynamics in large scale structures in the cosmos. It gives a good overview of the how philosophy enters the realm of cosmology, the role of metaphysics in modern cosmology, the role of process philosophy and heirarchical cosmology, and what the benefits of the different approaches can hope to achieve in cosmology , http://www.ctr4process.org/programs/LSI/2006-Cosmology/EastmanT%20-%20Cosmic%20Agnosticism.pdf


The New Physics and the Process View of Nature.

With continuing progress in new observation and experiments, a really “new” physics is steadily emerging that is less dependent on the unstated substance metaphysics that infects the “standard view of nature,” which has been dominant throughout most of the 20th century [Eastman, 2006b].
For example, it is ironic that the rigor of controlled laboratory experiments and constant, evolving interplay between theory and experiment has led particle physics to seeing the world not just as “particles,” but as a plenum of events; thus, both “particles” and events.

The process-oriented scholarly community and many scientists as well have shown the explanatory power of a process view of nature in Process Studies and other journals and books that highlight the interface of process thought and modern science [see compilation in Eastman and Keeton, 2004a,b].

Ours is a multiply-interconnected, processual universe in which any finite actuality is necessarily constituted by some unifying response to the plenum of events constituting its local world. [.....]



And I figured that plasma cosmology can probably be best summed up by this statement, for all the people that seem unable to grasp the main idea behind PC;

"The phenomena that the Big Bang seeks to explain with a mysterious ancient catacylsm, plasma theories attribute to electrical and magnetic processes occurring in the universe today."

And this uncensored version of the wikipedia page on plasma cosmology gives a brief overview;


Overview

Plasma cosmology posits that the most important feature of the universe is that the matter it contains is composed almost entirely of astrophysical plasma. The state of matter known as plasma is an electrically-conductive collection of charged particles, possibly together with neutral particles or dust, that exhibits collective behavior and that responds as a whole to electromagnetic forces. The charged particles are usually ions and electrons resulting from heating a gas. Stars and the interstellar medium are composed of plasma of different densities. Plasma physics is uncontroversially accepted to play an important role in many astrophysical phenomena.

The basic assumptions of plasma cosmology which differ from standard cosmology are:

1. Since the universe is nearly all plasma, electromagnetic forces are equal in importance with gravitation on all scales.[10] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Plasma_cosmology&oldid=88919194#cite_note-9).

2. An origin in time for the universe is rejected,[11] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Plasma_cosmology&oldid=88919194#cite_note-10)due to causality arguments and rejection of ex nihilo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_nihilo) models as a stealth form of creationism.[12] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Plasma_cosmology&oldid=88919194#cite_note-11)

3. Since every part of the universe we observe is evolving, it assumes that the universe itself is evolving as well, though a scalar expansion as predicted from the FRW metric is not accepted as part of this evolution (see static universe).

Plasma cosmology advocates emphasize the links between physical processes observable in laboratories on Earth and those that govern the cosmos; as many cosmological processes as possible are explained by the behavior of a plasma in the laboratory.[13] (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1981ASSL...82.....A) Proponents contrast this with the big bang theory which has over the course of its existence required the introduction of such features as inflation, dark matter and dark energy that have not been detectable yet in laboratory experiments.[14] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Plasma_cosmology&oldid=88919194#cite_note-13)


And some of these publications may add some good further reading on the plasma scale invariants in the universe, from laboratory to cosmos (list from various links at http://plasmas.org/space-astrophys.htm#research);


*Similarity of structuring in the range 10-5 cm to 10^23 cm hints at a baryonic cold dark skeleton of the Universe (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002APS..DPPFO1012K) - American Physical Society, 44th Annual Meeting of the Division of Plasma, 2002

*Magnetic vortex filaments, universal scale invariants, and the fundamental constants (http://www.health-freedom.info/pdf/Magnetic%20Vortex%20Filaments.pdf) Lerner, Eric J. IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science, vol. PS-14, Dec. 1986, p. 690-702.

The observed scale invariances in the universe are shown to support the idea that force-free magnetic vortex filaments have been central to the evolution of the universe and in the formation of superclusters, clusters, galaxies, and stars. The existence of a maximal size for vortex filaments that is comparable with that of the observable universe is demonstrated, eliminating the theoretical need for missing mass, and providing an alternative cosmology to that of the Big Bang. Invariants between microscopic and cosmological scales are proposed, leading to the derivation of a simple analytical expression for the fundamental constants, and suggesting the existence of vortex phenomena on the particle level.[...]

Astronomical bodies, ranging from clusters of galaxies down to stars, share an approximately constant parameter: J/M2, where J is the angular momentum, and M is mass. Many researchers have debated the significance of this relationship, with some claiming it to be of fundamental importance, and others denying any significance at all.

To date, no one has put forward a concrete hypothesis to explain why this parameter is roughly constant, or why this value is observed. This question can be reformulated by noting that for an object in gravitational equ[....]




*Evidences for and the models of self-similar skeletal structures in fusion devices, severe weather phenomena and space (http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0512245)

*Force-free magnetic filaments and the cosmic background radiation (http://www.health-freedom.info/pdf/Force%20Free%20Magnetic%20Filaments.pdf)

*Fractal Structures and the Large Scale Distribution of Galaxies (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001ctap.conf..391P)

*Finite size effects on the galaxy number counts: evidence for fractal behavior up to the deepest scale (http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9605135) - Physica A226 195–242 (1996).

*On the Fractal Nature of the Large-Scale Structure of the Universe (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1994A&AT....5...15B)

*Fractal universe. (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000PhyA..280..125P) - Physica A, Vol. 280, No. 1 - 2, p. 125 - 130, 2000.

*Skeletal Structures in the Images of Cosmic Dust Clouds and Solar SystemPlanets (http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplore/login.jsp?url=/iel5/27/4287017/04287077.pdf?temp=x) - Plasma Science, IEEE Transactions on Volume 35, Issue 4, Aug. 2007

* Self-Similarity of Electric Currents Networking in a Broad Range of Length Scales: from Laboratory to Cosmic Plasmas (http://flux.aps.org/meetings/YR98/BAPSDPP98/abs/S7900029.html) - A. B. Kukushkin and V. A. Rantsev-Kartinov, Rev. Scientific Instr., 70, n.2, pp.1387-1391, 1999.

*Electrodynamic Aggregation of Nanodust as a Source of Long-Lived Filaments in Laboratory Electric Discharges and Space (http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplore/login.jsp?url=/iel5/27/4287017/04287052.pdf?temp=x) - Kukushkin, A.B. Plasma Science, IEEE Transactions on Volume 35, Issue 4, Aug. 2007.

*Observation of Skeletal Filamentary Structures in Plasma of a Fast Z-Pinch (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002APS..DPPKO2012B) - American Physical Society, 44th Annual Meeting of the Division of Plasma, 2002

*Skeletal Structures in High-Current Electric Discharges: Observations, Hypotheses and Proof-of-Concept Studies (http://flux.aps.org/meetings/YR01/DPP01/abs/S1540010.html) - 29th EPS Conference on Plasma Phys. and Contr. Fusion Montreux, 17-21 June 2002

*Conceptual Problems of Fractal Cosmology (http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9912074) - Astronomical and Astrophysical Transactions, vol. 19, Issue 3, pp.417-435, 2000.

The results of a high-resolution processing, based on techniques of fractal dimension analysis and called a method of multilevel dynamical contrasting [1], of numerous data from laboratory electric discharges (Z-pinch, plasma focus) and observations of cosmic plasmas (including available Hubble Space Telescope data) reveal high degree of self-similarity of plasma structuring in a very broad range of length scales. This covers about thirty orders of magnitude: from micrometer thickness of individual filaments in laboratory discharges to the structures in the universe which resemble networking of electric currents in laboratory plasmas.[.....]


**Principles of Magnetohydrodynamics: With Applications to Laboratory and Astrophysical Plasmas (http://www.amazon.com/Principles-Magnetohydrodynamics-Applications-Laboratory-Astrophysical/dp/0521626072), Goedbloed and S. Poedts, Cambridge, 2004. [lecture notes (http://www.rijnh.nl/users/goedbloed/)]


So theres no need for the continual comments from Sol and people that "The trouble is that there is no such thing as plasma cosmology", when the exact definition of plasma cosmology has been put forward so many times now (see the bolded statement in this post [incase you missed it {again}]). I at least thought that you could accept that this type of approach exists, but I suppose that denying that it even exists in the first place makes it easier for you to deal with :D. I'm sure that the pioneers of plasma cosmology and other contributors to this field such as Alfven, Peratt, Lerner, Birkela