Plasma Cosmology - Woo or not

[Zeuzzz]

There's much, much more ...

For example, from here (selections; bolding added):It's worth repeating what sol invictus wrote in post #85, in full:So ...

On the one hand, a perfectly straight-forward paper reporting astronomical observations is a 'plasma cosmology paper' ...

On the other hand, a paper reporting 'intrinsic redshifts' is a 'plasma cosmology paper' ...

On the third hand, a paper directly inconsistent with Lerner's (on quasars) is a 'plasma cosmology paper' ...

On the fourth hand, a paper proposing some new physics not found in any (plasma) lab (nor any Lerner or Peratt papers) is a 'plasma cosmology paper' ...

On the fifth hand, a paper on solar system (planetary) phenomena is a 'plasma cosmology paper' ...

And so on.

Look. It really matters little what category you choose to put material under. All of those publications are regarded by plasma cosmologists to be of much higher importance than standard astronomers. Does that make them plasma cosmology papers? Yes And No. If you were showing someone the ideas behind PC/PU you would show them those papers, so you could call them plasma cosmology papers. you could also call them plasma universe papers. Some of them you could call electric universe papers. What does it matter? Your just re-enforcing separatist ideologies. Thornhill supports plasma cosmology, but often has more radical ideas than most PC proponents. Does that not make him a plasma cosmologist? Its entirely subjective. Its easy for people to just lump people into, for example, the EU category, and say "well, this falls under the EU bracket, so its obviously all crackpot", but thats just your opinion. Each piece of material should be judged on its individual merits, not just stereotyped into a certain group and dismissed.

Plasma cosmology is the study of the plasma universe, so any paper dealing with the plasma universe falls under that scope.

Continual discussion of which category this person, or this prediction, or this theory, fits into does nothing to progress the issue at hand. Nothing.



And by the way DRD, Lerner has read the latest editions of Transactions on Plasma Science, which includes some of Scotts and Thornhills more established peer reviewed material, and he said that he found the material very interesting, I saw an article on Lerners website about Thornhill and his colleagues at the IEEE's electric model of stars, and he seemed to like the idea. And no, there is nothing ludicrous at all about this model in the peer reviewed publications that have been published on it. You should not dismiss material just because you dislike the person who wrote it. Much of the highly speculative stuff, ie, the sun is charged at 10^>12 Coulombs, fuelled by Z-pinches on its surface, etc, etc, is left only for discussion on the net. Unfortunately, the wildest ideas seem to attract the most attention.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

... snip ...

I suggest that DRD puts these rebuts to PC in a bullet list, not hidden within lines upon lines of personal opinion and (often) misrepresentaions, and and we'll just have to see....

... snip ...

the rest is just lots of personal opinion that I shouldn't comment on, or i'll just end up getting invloved in a full on debate....

But kudos to DRD for actually taking the time, it seems that she/he has now actually read a few of the links I have provided

.

From an earlier post by Zeuzzz:

.

What about Lerner's version of PC, as it confronts observational evidence? That would make for some interesting discussions; sadly, I rather doubt JdG, BAC, or robinson would be up to having such, and as Zeuzzz will not be returning ...

not be returning for now, just lurking....

But I'll add the occasional comment when I can add direct info to the discussion, or when something is misrepresented, its very hard not to

.

And here's what sol invictus said, several pages ago (it seems; I added bolding):
.

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.

.

As I think should be pretty clear to most readers by now, Zeuzzz does not actually read the material he spams various threads with, in order to promote PC (at least, not critically), so I guess it's not strange that he should be surprised that at least someone does.

But what of the attitude so clearly stated in the posts by Zeuzzz I have quoted?

Instead of offering detailed analyses, point by point counter-rebuttals, etc, etc, etc (the very thing Zeuzzz himself complained that his critics did not do*), what does Zeuzzz do? Issue one-liners, and declare, yet again, his unwillingness to actually address questions about what he has posted.

For the record, how many times have I, and others, asked you direct questions about what you have posted Zeuzzz, questions that were highly relevant to the core content of your posts, that you have chosen to walk away from?

Why do you think you have been called, by several people, a troll?

We'll see ... taking a page from sol invictus' book, I'll give you a test, in the next day or so ...

* you want someone to go dig up your very own words on this Zeuzzz? Read what sol wrote, again ...

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Look. It really matters little what category you choose to put material under. All of those publications are regarded by plasma cosmologists to be of much higher importance than standard astronomers. Does that make them plasma cosmology papers? Yes And No. If you were showing someone the ideas behind PC/PU you would show them those papers, so you could call them plasma cosmology papers. you could also call them plasma universe papers. Some of them you could call electric universe papers. What does it matter? Your just re-enforcing separatist ideologies. Thornhill supports plasma cosmology, but often has more radical ideas than most PC proponents. Does that not make him a plasma cosmologist? Its entirely subjective. Its easy for people to just lump people into, for example, the EU category, and say "well, this falls under the EU bracket, so its obviously all crackpot", but thats just your opinion. Each piece of material should be judged on its individual merits, not just stereotyped into a certain group and dismissed.

Plasma cosmology is the study of the plasma universe, so any paper dealing with the plasma universe falls under that scope.

Continual discussion of which category this person, or this prediction, or this theory, fits into does nothing to progress the issue at hand. Nothing.



And by the way DRD, Lerner has read the latest editions of Transactions on Plasma Science, which includes some of Scotts and Thornhills more established peer reviewed material, and he said that he found the material very interesting, I saw an article on Lerners website about Thornhill and his colleagues at the IEEE's electric model of stars, and he seemed to like the idea. And no, there is nothing ludicrous at all about this model in the peer reviewed publications that have been published on it. You should not dismiss material just because you dislike the person who wrote it. Much of the highly speculative stuff, ie, the sun is charged at 10^>12 Coulombs, fuelled by Z-pinches on its surface, etc, etc, is left only for discussion on the net. Unfortunately, the wildest ideas seem to attract the most attention.

(bold added)

Is this the very same Zeuzzz who earlier made a quite remarkable declaration about Lerner and PC*?

Anyway, let's look at just one part, shall we?

Plasma cosmology is the study of the plasma universe, so any paper dealing with the plasma universe falls under that scope.

Hmm ...

Does the converse also hold? If a paper is NOT "the study of the plasma universe", does it "fall under that scope"?

And since, by definition of iantresman (and, no doubt, Lerner), the universe is 99.[insert more 9s here, to your heart's content]% plasma, does that make every paper written by every astronomer, astrophysicist, (etc) a "plasma cosmology paper"?

How about a straight answer to a simple question that you have been asked several times? How are papers by Arp (et al.), on 'intrinsic redshifts' (however defined) 'plasma cosmology papers'? Especially the ones which make no mention of plasma?

And while you're at it, how about references to lab-based experiments that report 'intrinsic redshifts' of the magnitude and nature Arp (et al.) write so many papers about? Even references to papers by Lerner (or Peratt) would be nice. Don't forget that Arp et al. are very clear that 'intrinsic redshifts' include some very high values, and that they apply to entire galaxies (not just point sources).

Also, I notice that you left out one category: 'plasma cosmology papers' which include models (etc) that are strongly inconsistent with Peratt/Lerner (plasma cosmology) ones.

Oh, and who wrote the very first paper in my selection from your list? Other than a reference to a Peratt paper (one of only a very few), what does her idea have to do with plasma cosmology?

* do I have to remind readers what you actually wrote, Zeuzzz?

 

[DeiRenDopa]

... snip ...

Her point about gravitational lensing disproving it shows a complete lack of what is being proposed,

... snip ...

Let's see now ...

Start with gravitational lensing: in (Lerner's) PC, do photons follow null geodesics? A simple YES or NO answer please (and no ducking the question by claiming you don't have the background in physics to be able to say, you've already declared that you do).

Good, they do.

Next, is it possible, in principle, to estimate the mass which causes 'gravitational lensing' by an approach like ray tracing? A simple YES or NO answer please (and no ducking the question by claiming you don't have the background in physics to be able to say, you've already declared that you do).

Good, it is.

Next, have reliable reports of high-quality observations been reported, in the peer-reviewed literature, of galaxies lensing background objects? This may be new to you, but it shouldn't be ... if you have been actually reading what I have written.

Good, they have.

Next, have 'mass maps' been made of these lensing galaxies? Or, have robust estimates been made of the mass of these lenses?

...

Here's the bottom line, Zeuzzz: galaxies have masses far in excess of that which you can estimate from objects and material, in the galaxies, which emits light (across the entire EM spectrum), or absorbs it ... as determined by gravitational lensing observations.

Now comes the PC-killer point in the logic chain (at least, PC per Lerner, and now Zeuzzz): the large-scale, average motions of stars, gas, plasma (etc) in galaxies can be accounted for entirely by the gravity due to the mass in the galaxies acting on the mass in the galaxies (enter the usual caveats, e.g. about colliding/merging galaxies). So who needs PC?

One more thing: Lerner puts great store in observations of a small number of high velocity ('halo') white dwarfs observed recently. He shouldn't, and should know better ... the various microlensing surveys constrain any such populations to levels far below 'baryonic matter in the halo is sufficient to account for spiral galaxy rotation curves' (as do the various deep HST observations), and only the most irresponsible extrapolations of the actual, independently verified, astronomical observations would suggest they could anyway.

But then you already knew all this, right? So you have, presumably, already got a draft paper ready to submit to arXiv, in support of PC AND consistent with all the various observations, right? And you're only too pleased to roll up your sleeves and discuss the actual observations in all their gory details ... right?

 

[sol invictus]

.... I said I wouldn't post any comments for a while
<snip>
What they have to do with plasma cosmology is beyond me. Scott and Thornhill are Electric Universe advocates, and, to the best of my knowledge, have published no material about plasma cosmology, or even cosmology, what-so-ever.

Look. It really matters little what category you choose to put material under. All of those publications are regarded by plasma cosmologists to be of much higher importance than standard astronomers. Does that make them plasma cosmology papers? Yes And No. If you were showing someone the ideas behind PC/PU you would show them those papers, so you could call them plasma cosmology papers. you could also call them plasma universe papers. Some of them you could call electric universe papers. What does it matter? Your just re-enforcing separatist ideologies.

Brilliant stuff - absolutely brilliant. Keep it up, please!

 

[robinson]

This is sort of like a Cocktail Party.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

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?

Sigh... I wonder where Jerome is? He's probably busy coming up with his specific definition of "redshift anomaly" - yes, that's it... I'm certain of it

The answers I received to the above questions show that the "true believers" care not for evidence. Why would I present information if it is being dismissed prior to presentation?

 

[Belz...]

No I never said that.

Yes, you have. Re-read what you said.

This is just not true.

Then pray tell, what evidence do you have AGAINST the big bang ?

 

[Reality Check]

The answers I received to the above questions show that the "true believers" care not for evidence. Why would I present information if it is being dismissed prior to presentation?

What the "true believers" in science care for is evidence. I personally would just like to know

1. What do you think the redshift anomaly is?
2. What application does this have to Plasma Cosmology (the subject of this post)?

In case you are interested I do know what the redshift anomaly is and I do know what application it has to Plasma Cosmology (none).

 

[Dancing David]

The answers I received to the above questions show that the "true believers" care not for evidence. Why would I present information if it is being dismissed prior to presentation?

Then present the evidence, if it involves the use of a posteriori statistics and not representative sampling and distribution values compared against controls then it is NOT science.

Does that bother you so much Jerome, what Arp, Burbidge and Gutierez do when it comes to associations of galaxies and QSOs is not science, it is wishful thinking. They are all capable of good bounded science but they don't use a control group when it comes to galaxy QSO associations. (Really, they don't, they use a shell game to pretend the statistics have meaning, Arp in fact preselected his most recent object of study on periodic redshifts, which is rather a sample bias.)

I think that is something you might want to think about, so what is this some sort of secret initiatory society?

"You can only see the evidence after you demonstrate that you are worthy."

Give me a break Jerome, I will critique your evidence, I think you just don't want to face the facts and so you play Mystery Data.

I will evaluate your data on the basis of the merits usually applied to data in science, so if you can it would be nice to see. I have usually tried to be polite in these discussions with BAC.

If you have evidence of interaction between the QSOs and the galaxies i would like to see it.

 

[Mashuna]

The answers I received to the above questions show that the "true believers" care not for evidence. Why would I present information if it is being dismissed prior to presentation?

For the rarity value?

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Then present the evidence, if it involves the use of a posteriori statistics and not representative sampling and distribution values compared against controls then it is NOT science.

Does that bother you so much Jerome, what Arp, Burbidge and Gutierez do when it comes to associations of galaxies and QSOs is not science, it is wishful thinking. They are all capable of good bounded science but they don't use a control group when it comes to galaxy QSO associations. (Really, they don't, they use a shell game to pretend the statistics have meaning, Arp in fact preselected his most recent object of study on periodic redshifts, which is rather a sample bias.)

I think that is something you might want to think about, so what is this some sort of secret initiatory society?

"You can only see the evidence after you demonstrate that you are worthy."

Give me a break Jerome, I will critique your evidence, I think you just don't want to face the facts and so you play Mystery Data.

I will evaluate your data on the basis of the merits usually applied to data in science, so if you can it would be nice to see. I have usually tried to be polite in these discussions with BAC.

If you have evidence of interaction between the QSOs and the galaxies i would like to see it.

See, the evidence is known and dismissed as wishful thinking.

 

[Dancing David]

See, the evidence is known and dismissed as wishful thinking.

Hmm, so how does Arp, Burbidge or Gutierez determine the actual distribution of QSOs across the sky. A mean variable of distribution (assuming they are evenly distributed) is not enough.

The usual scientific method (not the pixie occurrence method) is to sample the actual distribution, these are then the normative values of the sample (IE you sample 'normal galaxies, random points on the sky), then you compare it to the sample of the 'experimental' group.

This is something that Arp, Burbidge and Gutierez have not done.

Do you have a problem with science Jerome?

As I said Arp et al can resolve this very easily, they can make the normative samples and then compare the experimental sample to the normative sample. If it rises a standard deviation above the normative distribution then they might have something, if it rises more than that they definitely have something.

So you have a problem with census sampling and surveys and dismiss the science for pixie counting. How strange, Arp, Burbidge and Gutierez could have done this at any time and then people would not dismiss their evidence.

But what they have done is said that a royal flush being dealt is a sign of cheating, without the statistical sample to prove it.

They could prove their theory at any point in time by doing the normative distribution , that is what a statistical scientist would do. I wonder why they don't.

Arp in his most recent paper gushes about how he found a galaxy with 9 QSOs that meet the Karlsson peaks 'like a key in a lock' but he at the top of the page also mentions that he deliberately screened the sample to find the galaxy that best meets the Karlsson values. That is like saying that you have found the best race horse by looking at the average winds of the horse. That does not prove that horse racing ability is not distributed randomly amongst horses.

Arp can not prove that his sample correlation rises above the noise level of random association?

Why? Because he has not done the representative samples for his normative distribution.

Something that would get him laughed out of an epidemiology conference or a psychology conference.

Do you want to address this JDG?


It is something that should have been addressed long ago, but what Arp et al. do with these alleged correlations is not science, other wise they would have the control groups of normative distribution to prove that their correlation rises above noise level.

Does that bother you? It is why it is wishful thinking they have done something that would cause them to fail freshman sociology.

They could make it science at any time, why don’t they do so?


Hmmmm?

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Fantastic effort, posting that series of answers! Most of it, I even had a dim kind of understanding of, so your achievement knows no bounds!

In fact, your responses have been so well constructed and written that it's given me an idea.

Thank you.

I'd like to say that the groundwork laid by sol invictus, ben m, Ziggurat, The Man, Dancing David, and many others, in the Something new under the sun thread was extremely important to us getting a hard look at PC in this thread.

As was Reality Check's initiative to start this thread, with its clearly defined scope.

However, the real breakthrough came with Zeuzzz posting "a description of Plasma Cosmology" (albeit one that was rather massive in terms of links and quotes) - at last we have something concrete and fairly clearly written up to examine, critique, comment on, etc.

If you'd like dig deeper on any point, or would like something that isn't as clear as you think it could be explained another way, please ask; I for one would be happy to do what I can to help improve your understanding.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Let's see now ...

Start with gravitational lensing: in (Lerner's) PC, do photons follow null geodesics? A simple YES or NO answer please (and no ducking the question by claiming you don't have the background in physics to be able to say, you've already declared that you do).

Good, they do.

Next, is it possible, in principle, to estimate the mass which causes 'gravitational lensing' by an approach like ray tracing? A simple YES or NO answer please (and no ducking the question by claiming you don't have the background in physics to be able to say, you've already declared that you do).

Good, it is.

Next, have reliable reports of high-quality observations been reported, in the peer-reviewed literature, of galaxies lensing background objects? This may be new to you, but it shouldn't be ... if you have been actually reading what I have written.

Good, they have.

Next, have 'mass maps' been made of these lensing galaxies? Or, have robust estimates been made of the mass of these lenses?

...

Here's the bottom line, Zeuzzz: galaxies have masses far in excess of that which you can estimate from objects and material, in the galaxies, which emits light (across the entire EM spectrum), or absorbs it ... as determined by gravitational lensing observations.

Now comes the PC-killer point in the logic chain (at least, PC per Lerner, and now Zeuzzz): the large-scale, average motions of stars, gas, plasma (etc) in galaxies can be accounted for entirely by the gravity due to the mass in the galaxies acting on the mass in the galaxies (enter the usual caveats, e.g. about colliding/merging galaxies). So who needs PC?

One more thing: Lerner puts great store in observations of a small number of high velocity ('halo') white dwarfs observed recently. He shouldn't, and should know better ... the various microlensing surveys constrain any such populations to levels far below 'baryonic matter in the halo is sufficient to account for spiral galaxy rotation curves' (as do the various deep HST observations), and only the most irresponsible extrapolations of the actual, independently verified, astronomical observations would suggest they could anyway.

But then you already knew all this, right? So you have, presumably, already got a draft paper ready to submit to arXiv, in support of PC AND consistent with all the various observations, right? And you're only too pleased to roll up your sleeves and discuss the actual observations in all their gory details ... right?

.
One of the papers in Zeuzzz' many lists is one by Snell and Peratt, "Rotation Velocity and Neutral Hydrogen Distribution Dependency on Magnetic Field Strength in Spiral Galaxies", published in 1995. Here's the abstract (I added some bolding):

The rotation velocity of a simulated plasma galaxy is compared to the rotation curves of Sc type spiral galaxies. Both show ‘flat’ rotation curves with velocities of the order of several hundred kilometers per second, modified by E × B instabilities. Maps of the strength and distribution of galactic magnetic fields and neutral hydrogen regions, as-well-as as predictions by particle-in-cell simulations run in the late 1970s, are compared to Effelsberg observations. Agreement between simulation and observation is best when the simulation galaxy masses are identical to the observational masses of spiral galaxies. No dark matter is needed.

.
First note that this seems to be inconsistent with Lerner - he says the "observational masses of spiral galaxies" is too low, because lots of 'halo' white dwarfs have recently been observed (and some other reasons too).

But note the bigger inconsistency: gravitational lensing observations of (spiral) galaxies shows much more mass than the "observational masses", hence there is a need for dark matter.

But if, as seems likely, Peratt's simulations do not agree with observation ("the strength and distribution galactic magnetic fields and neutral hydrogen regions") when the gravitational lensing estimates of the masses of spiral galaxies are used, what can we conclude about those simulations?

One possible conclusion: Peratt's model of spiral galaxies does not correspond to the reality of spiral galaxies ...

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Hmm, so how does Arp, Burbidge or Gutierez determine the actual distribution of QSOs across the sky. A mean variable of distribution (assuming they are evenly distributed) is not enough.

The usual scientific method (not the pixie occurrence method) is to sample the actual distribution, these are then the normative values of the sample (IE you sample 'normal galaxies, random points on the sky), then you compare it to the sample of the 'experimental' group.

This is something that Arp, Burbidge and Gutierez have not done.

Do you have a problem with science Jerome?

As I said Arp et al can resolve this very easily, they can make the normative samples and then compare the experimental sample to the normative sample. If it rises a standard deviation above the normative distribution then they might have something, if it rises more than that they definitely have something.

So you have a problem with census sampling and surveys and dismiss the science for pixie counting. How strange, Arp, Burbidge and Gutierez could have done this at any time and then people would not dismiss their evidence.

But what they have done is said that a royal flush being dealt is a sign of cheating, without the statistical sample to prove it.

They could prove their theory at any point in time by doing the normative distribution , that is what a statistical scientist would do. I wonder why they don't.

Arp in his most recent paper gushes about how he found a galaxy with 9 QSOs that meet the Karlsson peaks 'like a key in a lock' but he at the top of the page also mentions that he deliberately screened the sample to find the galaxy that best meets the Karlsson values. That is like saying that you have found the best race horse by looking at the average winds of the horse. That does not prove that horse racing ability is not distributed randomly amongst horses.

Arp can not prove that his sample correlation rises above the noise level of random association?

Why? Because he has not done the representative samples for his normative distribution.

Something that would get him laughed out of an epidemiology conference or a psychology conference.

Do you want to address this JDG?


It is something that should have been addressed long ago, but what Arp et al. do with these alleged correlations is not science, other wise they would have the control groups of normative distribution to prove that their correlation rises above noise level.

Does that bother you? It is why it is wishful thinking they have done something that would cause them to fail freshman sociology.

They could make it science at any time, why don’t they do so?


Hmmmm?

What exactly are your credentials that you so blatantly malign the honesty and integrity of scientists?

Your not one of those wish you could have beens, are you?

 

[DeiRenDopa]

What exactly are your credentials that you so blatantly malign the honesty and integrity of scientists?

Your not one of those wish you could have beens, are you?

Um, ... er, ...

It's no secret, in the astronomy community, that Arp's use of statistics (etc) is, shall we say, poor.

And G. Burbidge (not to be confused with his wife, M. Burbidge) put his name, as author, to a recent paper on QSSC (Quasi-Steady State Cosmology) - or something similar - that is/contains some material that is intellectually dishonest. It's been discussed recently here in the JREF forum (and my recollection of the details may not be entirely accurate); would you like to read it?

So, there's no need for DD to "malign the honesty and integrity" of at least these two (their own records are public, and questions of honesty and integrity are thus objectively and independently verifiable).

 

[Tubbythin]

Look. It really matters little what category you choose to put material under. All of those publications are regarded by plasma cosmologists to be of much higher importance than standard astronomers. Does that make them plasma cosmology papers? Yes And No. If you were showing someone the ideas behind PC/PU you would show them those papers, so you could call them plasma cosmology papers. you could also call them plasma universe papers. Some of them you could call electric universe papers. What does it matter? Your just re-enforcing separatist ideologies.

Huh? It was you who was trying to separate them remember:

What they have to do with plasma cosmology is beyond me. Scott and Thornhill are Electric Universe advocates, and, to the best of my knowledge, have published no material about plasma cosmology, or even cosmology, what-so-ever.

 

[Zeuzzz]

Huh? It was you who was trying to separate them remember:

Depends what you categorize plasma cosmology as. I define it as the study of the plasma universe, which see's no need for an ex nihilo creationist perspective of the universe, and focusses on what processes are ongoing and fully experimentally verifiable, with a lot more attention given to plasma forces and electromagnetism than the traditional gravity and mass only models. This is what most PC proponents would also define it as. So Scotts material, and Thornhills, would fall under this scope, by this definition, as they are dealing specifically with EM forces and plasma effects in the cosmos.

But, it seems that this description is not accepted by most people here, in their opinion any form of cosmology has to be specifically about the observations that are used to prove the Big Bang. Now, Scott and Thornhill have not written anything about the CMB, dark matter, inflation, etc, or other things used to support the Big Bang, so according to many people here, its not categorized as cosmology, or plasma cosmology. Only the material from Peratt, Snell, Lerner and other plasma cosmologists that do address these observations usually associated with a Big Bang would be considered contributing to plasma cosmology. I'm fine with working with this, as I really dont see what difference it makes what group you put work into. Thus why from this viewpoint (the predominant viewpoint of most people in this thread) the work of Scott, Thornhill and their colleaugues is not about plasma cosmology, which is why I said that.

As I said, continual discussion of which category this person, or this prediction, or this theory, fits into does nothing to progress the issue at hand. Each piece of material should be judged on its individual merits, not just stereotyped into a certain group and dismissed. It doesn't help that not much of this material has been discussed here yet either, people are judging it at face value, and often from abstracts only.


...Now to get to DRD's last few posts...

I've briefly read through your posts, and since you didn't create a clear list of your direct refutations of plasma cosmology, like I recommended, I'll have a quick go to see exactly what your getting at, so I can try to respond in the near future.

Please add anything I have missed.



***post #117 http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3683237&postcount=117

Nothing?


***post #118 http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3683316&postcount=118

This post is complaining about a couple of sentences in Eastmans paper. Other than that, Nothing? (and you may want to re-read "The contribution of brown dwarfs to the local mass budget of the Galaxy", the abstract does not really reflect their full conclusions accurately)


***post #119 http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3683385&postcount=119

Nothing?

Maybe this?

"Specifically, the most concrete example is rotation curves of spiral galaxies and the doing away for a need for CDM (it's the third reference in [14]) ... in this case, PC falls splat! on its face, both in terms of a viable alternative explanation and failing to address the bulk of the universe's CDM (hint: it's not in the halos of spiral galaxies, but elsewhere!)"

I'm really not sure of the specifics of what you are claiming here, and how it directly invalidates PC.


***post #120 http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3683462&postcount=120

1. "Lerner is proposing that the universe becomes opaque to microwaves below a certain frequency, is transparent above that frequency (it's actually more of a range than a sharp frequency cutoff), and that the scale-length for opacity is a few Mpc (the paper is rather weak on what bounds there should be for this).

[...]However, the universe is, apparently, quite transparent, to microwaves and radio, way out to z ~5 (there's more of course, but that will do for now)."


***post #124 http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3684272&postcount=124

2. Peratt's 'no CDM' spiral galaxy model is inconsistent with estimates of the amount of CDM from gravitational lensing

3. Oddly, Elerner does not also mention that the WMAP team's analysis of the CMB produces an estimate of large-scale structure that is completely consistent with that from teams like SDSS; nor does he mention the observational detection of BAO (baryon acoustic oscillation) in the 'local' universe. It's a relatively simple matter to put these together, and show that an 'eternal' PC universe would not, and could not, resolve Olbers' paradox, even with Lerner's tired light.


***post #125 http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3684546&postcount=125

Nothing?

or maybe this?

"(section I; which I may cover in a later post), most of what Lerner wrote in the other two sections has been overtaken by subsequently published observations, which the Wikipedia page at least acknowledges (and which I have said pretty much demolish the case for PC)." Care to ellaborate?


***post #142 http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3685384&postcount=142

Nothing?


***post #143 http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3685419&postcount=143

Nothing?


***post #144 http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3685462&postcount=144

4. Now comes the PC-killer point in the logic chain (at least, PC per Lerner, and now Zeuzzz): the large-scale, average motions of stars, gas, plasma (etc) in galaxies can be accounted for entirely by the gravity due to the mass in the galaxies acting on the mass in the galaxies (enter the usual caveats, e.g. about colliding/merging galaxies).

5. Lerner puts great store in observations of a small number of high velocity ('halo') white dwarfs observed recently. He shouldn't, and should know better ... the various microlensing surveys constrain any such populations to levels far below 'baryonic matter in the halo is sufficient to account for spiral galaxy rotation curves' (as do the various deep HST observations), and only the most irresponsible extrapolations of the actual, independently verified, astronomical observations would suggest they could anyway.




If I have missed any of your refutations of plasma cosmology, please add them to the list. And may I recommend you write up your findings disproving plasma cosmology, and submit it to be published and peer reviewed in a journal of your choice. Thats how science works after all, and you'd be doing what no-one so far has been able to do. That way any plasma cosmologist could respond to it in the future, which would certainly save me the time

And I would consider rethinking a couple of those points. Especially the ones about dark gnomes proving that PC is wrong for example.... they could end up backfiring on you....

 

[Dancing David]

What exactly are your credentials that you so blatantly malign the honesty and integrity of scientists?

Your not one of those wish you could have beens, are you?

Hi,
I am not a wannabe, I am who I am, and that includes education, training and practice in the use of census based statitistics. I notice you didn't answer the point Jerome which is this.

If Arp et al. want their correlation to be taken seriously then they have to have a control group of a 'normative' sample. You don't know how medications are tested don't you, I assume you are also familiar with the process to determine health risk factors. To determine an incidence of some causal factor (or the possibility thereof) you have to compare you 'experiemental' sample (in this case the Arp galaxies) to representative sample that is the base line event of possible occurance.

You can not just count the number of heart attacks in a population and determine anything, you have to be able to compare the difference between your test sample and the 'normative' population.

You know what JDG, don't pull that troll stuff, I am not maligning the honesty and integrity of these people. I am saying that the methodlogy they use is flawed. It can be remidied very easily.

I suggest you check out your browser search engine and enter the terms 'sample bias' and 'sample error'. Even smart people can make poor choices, like not using a control group in the protocol.

Address the issue, they need to determine the actual frequency of occurance of QSOs around galaxies and random spots on the sky before they can say they have an extraordinary association. But to do that you have to know the ordinary rate of association.

Smart people, and I think Arp is one, and Gutierez as well, can make poor choices, like not using a control group. Heck Schleiman dug right through the Troy he was looking for.

You seem to be taking some umbrage at my suggestion that the protocol is wrong. Who looks dogmatic when they do that?

They could just do the normative study and get it over with. Instead of counting QSOs and pretending they have an association.