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.
Well, Zeuzzz, you are almost the sole cause of this confusion/misunderstanding/mis-categorisation/... not least because when someone explicitly asked about a particular paper you had explicitly called 'a plasma cosmology paper', you refused to answer (or, more kindly, simply ignored the repeated questions).
Further, you have been asked, repeatedly, to clarify issues concerning Arp et al.'s papers (both the ones you directly cite and the ones on the webpages you provide links to), on 'intrinsic redshift' and its relationship with 'plasma cosmology' (in the post of yours I'm quoting, you do it again "
focusses on what processes are [...] fully experimentally verifiable"). Again, not once (that I can recall) did you get off your high horse and actually acknowledge the questions (much less answer them)!
Then, when some draw the pretty obvious logical conclusion that 'plasma cosmology' accepts, as a core, legitimate method, the logic of false dichotomy, you get all huffy.
And so on ...
And you wonder why some people call you a troll?
.
...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.
... snip ...
Dude, you need new reading glasses.
#117: "
Taking the points in your lengthy post one by one ... [...]
Why? because [the Eastman paper - you lauded it, remember?]
says essentially nothing about how well (or not) any of these 'alternative cosmologies' matches the relevant observations (and no, Burbidge does not introduce any such, in the 2006 paper Eastman cites). [...] Now
we can ask questions like the following, and we can expect that any proponent of PC worth his salt will be able to provide chapter and verse answers." (bold added)
No attempt to provide "
direct refutations of plasma cosmology", nor any statement that any would be forthcoming.
#118: you expect "
direct refutations of plasma cosmology" in a post that comments on yours, which explicitly states its scope is philosophy?!?!
#119: why repeat stuff that we've done to death elsewhere? Peratt's spiral galaxy rotation curve work, no matter how many papers he spins it across, is DOA, for reasons that were covered, at considerable length, in older threads. You'd like a concise summary, again, of why it's DOA?
Also: "
Almost all the other cites are works by Alfvén, and many are at least partly philosophical. If any reader is interested in discussing any of these, in terms of the science (observation, theory, how well they match, etc), I'd be happy to participate."
May I take your post to mean that you'd like to have such a discussion, and will be actively contributing (hopefully also in a positive fashion)? You had only to ask!
#120: I don't know how much simpler I can make the main point:
according to Lerner: no radio emissions can be observed from high-z objects (say, z >~2)
according to radio astronomers: Lerner's idea is DOA, because there are lots of just those kinds of objects in the various surveys.
You want even more stuff on why this part of Lerner's idea is DOA? All you have to do is ask!
#124: you want more details? AND you are prepared to engage in a discussion (not do a seagull - drop bucketloads of spam woo and vanish)? Just say so.
Which of the items would you like to start with?
#125: "
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 ..."
You want to engage in such a discussion? AND you are prepared refrain from being a seagull (drop no more bucketloads of spam woo and vanish)? Just say so.
Which of the items would you like to start with?
[skip to #144]
#144: in case you hadn't noticed, this is my version of the 'sol invictus test': your response tells me just how serious you are about actually discussing PC, and how solid your physics (relevant to the topic) actually is.
That you did not give a straight YES or NO answer to any of the questions, nor indicate a willingness to either ask questions or sign up for the discussion, does not bode well.
But maybe I wasn't clear enough.
Zeuzzz, do you want to have a discussion of how the observational evidence is inconsistent with both Peratt's and Lerner's assertions/conclusions that (spiral) galaxies contain no CDM?
A simple, clear YES or NO please.
.
***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.
... snip ...
"(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?
... snip ...
Sure.
Elerner's Wikipedia article was written in ~2006; you confirmed my guess that Lerner's webpage (that you cited) was written in ~Dec 2003.
[35] in the Wikipedia article (links omitted):
35. ^ M. Tegmark et al. (SDSS collaboration), "The three-dimensional power spectrum of galaxies from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey", Astrophysical J. 606 702–740 (2004). arXiv:astro-ph/0310725 The failure of the fractal model is clearly indicated by the deviation of the matter power spectrum from a power law at scales larger than 0.5 h Mpc-1 (visible here).The authors comment that their work has "thereby [driven] yet another nail into the coffin of the fractal universe hypothesis..."
That's just one example.
.
***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
... snip ...
Thank you for your suggestion.
However, as the astronomy (and astrophysics and cosmology) community regards plasma cosmology, in any flavour, as fringe science, what would be the point? The target audience of such a paper - astronomers, etc - would likely snort and say 'what? nothing better to do?'
Zeuzzz, one of your biggest failings, it seems to me, is your inability to appreciate to what lengths most professionals would go to have their names on a truly landmark paper. Do you honestly think that most are completely ignorant of the ideas you have so frequently spambombed JREF forum pages with? That they do not scan arXiv abstracts, with an eye for new ideas and perspectives?
If there was anything paradigm-changing in any of Peratt's or Lerner's papers, someone would have cottoned onto it long ago, put some serious astronomical meat on the meager plasma physics bones, and have been on their way to Stockholm years ago.
To give just one example: look at how fast one fatal flaw in Peratt's supercomputer 'spiral galaxy' simulations work was spotted, by some JREF regulars! If that work had even the tiniest of chances of containing some viable idea, any one of those who have read the paper(s) these last many years would have picked it up and run with it. The fact that essentially no one (other than Peratt et al.) has cited it is a pretty good indication of just how barren it (and most of PC) is.
Zeuzzz, plasma cosmology has the tag 'fringe science' for an extremely good reason.
