• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Plasma Cosmology - Woo or not

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.

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) (full text)). 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.
 
Last edited:

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
 
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.
 
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.
 
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 ;)
 
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?
 
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.
 
What do you think about the anomalies in the redshift observed in galaxies such as NGC 7603?

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.
 
What do you think about the anomalies in the redshift observed in galaxies such as NGC 7603?
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"?
 
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)?
 
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.
 
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?
 
What do you think about the anomalies in the redshift observed in galaxies such as NGC 7603?

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.
 
Last edited:

Back
Top Bottom