More electric-plasma universe woo!!! Just as the thread was getting on track about the Pioneer Anomaly. Arrrggh...
Since the woos are going to post links, I might as well too...
Comparisons of Plasma Cosmology to Mainstream Cosmology
Good grief... will the flood of woo-crap never cease?!
Since you are so keen to keep bringing up that small wikipedia entry that purports to debunk plasma cosmology, thats have a look at some of the problems with it. As i said before, your best bet to see PC material is not on wikipedia,
this site is far less biased.
"Plasma cosmology has been developed in much less detail than mainstream cosmology and lacks many of the key predictions and features of the current models[citation needed].
Yes, indeed, 'citation needed'
Plasma cosmology generally provides qualitative descriptions and no systematic explanation for the standard features of mainstream cosmological theories[citation needed].
No evidence for the proposition, again.
The mass estimates of galaxy clusters using gravitational lensing also indicate that there is a large quantity of dark matter present, an observation not explained by plasma cosmology models.[19]
This is hilarious! Mainstream scientists are saying that plasma cosmology is not viable because it is not based on things that they made up to plug the numbers in
their models! The irony.
The fact that plasma cosmology needs no such epicycles such as 'dark matter' 'dark energy' or 'hidden dimensions' to function correctly is a strong strength of plamsa cosmology, definitely not a weakness.
Mainstream studies also suggest that the universe is homogeneous on large scales without evidence of the very large scale structure required by plasma filamentation proposals.[20]
Well, i don’t know what universe the people who wrote this are living in, but it definitely is not this one. Are they seriously saying that there is not large scale filamentation observed in space?
Even in our own milky way the abundance of filaments has largely remained a mystery to conventional astronomers with their gravitational only equations. They seem to be ignoring the large amount of galaxies recently discovered lined up along filamentary paths, In fact, these filamentary structures seem to be everywhere, from large scale to small scale, and are very hard to explain with gravitational equations alone, EM forces and currents have to be employed.
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/galaxy_filaments_040607.html
New observations of the center of our Milky Way Galaxy have revealed the origin of radio-emitting filaments that puzzled astronomers for two decades.
The filaments range from 10 to 100 light-years in length and 1 to 3 light-years across. They occur only in a very narrow area, within about 900 light-years of the galactic center, a region crowded with old and new stars.
The filaments emerge from pockets of intense star formation, the new study found. [......]
The exact mechanism that creates the filaments remains to be discovered.
"One possibility is that they are produced by the collision of winds blown off from individual stars," Yusef-Zadeh said.
Who ever has administration rights over this page at wikipedia clearly lacks an in depth understanding of plasma astrophysics, and what its proponents have discovered over the past couple of decades.
*
Microwave Generation from Filamentation and Vortex Formation within Magnetically Confined Electron Beams, A. L. Peratt and C. M. Snell, Physical Review Letters, 54, pp. 1167-1170, 1985 (688K).
*
Interstellar Neutral Hydrogen Filaments at High Galactic Latitudes and the Bennett Pinch G. L. Verschuur, Astrophys. Space Sci. 227, pp. 187-198, 1995 (776K).
*
Filamentary Structures in planetary nebulae (PDF), 2006-07-04, Seminar, Space & Plasma Physics, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm
*
Filamentary structures in planetary nebulae - Astrophysics and Space Science, Volume 310, Issue 1-2, pp. 65-72, 2007
We have studied small-scale, filamentary features in 14 planetary nebulae and found that some structures are recurrent and shaped like the letters V and Y, with the apex or stem pointing toward the central parts of the nebula. Two such filaments containing dust, one in NGC 3132 and one in NGC 7293, were investigated in more detail. The mass and density of the filaments were obtained from extinction measurements, and their physical properties were derived. We propose that the structures are confined by magnetic fields, and derive magnetic field strengths of about 10‑8 T, in line with earlier estimates. We also estimate the magnitude of the electric currents that we expect are generated in these dynamic systems. We propose a theory where the magnetic fields control the sculpting and evolution of small-scale filaments. This theory demonstrates how the substructures may form magnetized flux ropes that are twisted around each other, in the shape of double helices [Birkeland currents]. Similar structures, and with similar origin, are found in many other astrophysical environments.
The largest galaxy number count to date, the Sloan Digital Sky Survey, corresponds well to the mainstream picture.[21]
What they fail to note that these observations are consistent with
both mainstream ideas and plasma cosmology, and that is probably why they do not say how this observation actually falsifies plasma cosmology.
Light element production without Big Bang nucleosynthesis (as required in plasma cosmology) has been discussed in the mainstream literature and was determined to produce excessive x-rays and gamma rays beyond that observed.[22][23] This issue has not been completely addressed by plasma cosmology proponents in their proposals.[24] Additionally, from an observational point of view, the gamma rays emitted by even small amounts of matter/antimatter annihilation should be easily visible using gamma ray telescopes. However, such gamma rays have not been observed. This could be resolved by proposing, as Alfvén did, that the bubble of matter we are in is larger than the observable universe.
This is what you get for trusting wikipedia. Light element production has been answered by many plasma cosmologists, I think that Lerners galaxy production method is favoured at the moment, Arp has proposed another method, others have proposed a stellar origin, and there are many others that are all viable contenders. I am very surprised they have not included this work on that page, as it appears to answer all the 'problems' they are saying exist. Heres a few;
*
Magnetic Vortex Filaments, Universal Invariants and the Fundamental Constants IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science, Special Issue on Cosmic Plasma, Vol. PS‑14, No. 6, Dec. 1986, pp. 690‑702.
*
Force-Free Magnetic Filaments and the Cosmic Background Radiation IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science, Vol.20, no. 6, Dec. 1992, pp. 935-938.
*
Galactic Model of Element Formation IEEE Transac*tions on Plasma Science, Vol. 17, No. 3, April 1989, pp. 259‑263.
*
Magnetic Self-Compression in Laboratory Plasma, Quasars and Radio Galaxies - Laser and Particle Beams, Vol. 4, Pt. 2, (1986), pp. 193-222.
No proposal based on plasma cosmology trying to explain the cosmic microwave background radiation has been published since COBE results were announced. Proposed explanations are relying on integrated starlight and do not provide any indication of how to explain that the observed angular anisotropies of CMB power spectrum is (so low as) one part in 105. The sensitivity and resolution of the measurement of these anisotropies was greatly advanced by WMAP. The fact that the CMB was measured to be so isotropic, inline with the predictions of the big bang model, was subsequently heralded as a major confirmation of the Big Bang model to the detriment of alternatives.[25]
Again, they seem to be ignoring the solutions offered to these problems.
*
Radio Absorption by the Intergalactic Medium The Astro*physical Journal, Vol. 361, Sept. 20, 1990, pp. 63‑68.
*
Confirmation of Radio Absorption by the Intergalactic Medium Astrophysics and Space Science, Vol 207, 1993 p.17-26.
*
Intergalactic Radio Absorption and the COBE Data Astrophysics and Space Science, Vol.227, May, 1995, p.61-81
*
Evidence for a Non-Expanding Universe: Surface Brightness Data From HUDF - Proceedings of the First Crisis in Cosmology Conference, AIP proceedings series 822, 2006, p.60-74.
Plasma cosmology is not considered by the astronomical community to be a viable alternative to the Big Bang. As such, plasma cosmology has remained sidelined and viewed in the community as a proposal unworthy of serious consideration.[/i]"
Well, I largely agree with that. A shame that there is so much resistance it, but the same is true with any new area of science. The trouble is that there is never any substantial, consistent reason proposed to dismiss Plasma cosmology, and so the scientists that support it seem to be growing in number every year.
I am still waiting for your source that refutes plasma cosmology, apart from wikipedia. If you cant find one, ask yourself why that is.
This paper sums up the comparison between the two cosmologies in a far less biased way than wikipedia.
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freeabs_all.jsp?tp=&arnumber=1265349&isnumber=28301
Two world systems revisited: a comparison of plasma cosmology and the Big Bang
Lerner, E.J.
Lawrenceville Plasma Phys., NJ, USA;
This paper appears in: Plasma Science, IEEE Transactions on
Publication Date: Dec. 2003
Volume: 31, Issue: 6, Part 1
On page(s): 1268- 1275
Abstract:
Despite its great popularity, the Big Bang framework for cosmology faces growing contradictions with observation. The Big Bang theory requires three hypothetical entities-the inflation field, nonbaryonic (dark) matter, and the dark energy field-to overcome gross contradictions of theory and observation. Yet, no evidence has ever confirmed the existence of any of these three hypothetical entities. The predictions of the theory for the abundance of /sup 4/He, /sup 7/Li, and D are more than 7/spl sigma/ from the data for any assumed density of baryons and the probability of the theory fitting the data is less than 10/sup -14/. Observations of voids in the distribution of galaxies that are in excess of 100 Mpc in diameter, combined with observed low streaming velocities of galaxies, imply an age for these structure that is at least triple and more likely six times the hypothesized time since the Big Bang. Big Bang predictions for the anisotropy of the microwave background, which now involve seven or more free parameters, still are excluded by the data at the 2/spl sigma/ level. The observed preferred direction in the background anisotropy completely contradicts Big Bang assumptions. In contrast, the predictions of plasma cosmology have been strengthened by new observations, including evidence for the stellar origin of the light elements, the plasma origin of large-scale structures, and the origin of the cosmic microwave background in a "radio fog" of dense plasma filaments. This review of the evidence shows that the time has come, and indeed has long since come, to abandon the Big Bang as the primary model of cosmology.
