Plasma Cosmology - Woo or not

[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. 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? 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://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3674297&postcount=42 that you ignored.

Well, I think that pretty much sums up the responce to my post; http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/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

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, 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. 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.

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.

 

[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

Speeling schmeeling!

 

[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. 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. 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?

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? 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://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3674297&postcount=42 that you ignored.

Well, I think that pretty much sums up the responce to my post; http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/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 position

Huh?

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' 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 - Cosmic Agnosticism.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", 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...

 

[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...

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. 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?

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?

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. Or maybe its just rank hippocrasy.

 

[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.