• 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

JEROME DA GNOME said:
I hope everyone understands that that above post is from a self professed college professor.
Click to expand...


That's me, by the way :D

(Actually, I teach both high school and college level - full disclosure, yadda yadda)

Jerome, do you really expect, after all of your belligerence and obfuscation on a variety of topics on this Forum, to garner any sympathy whatsoever when someone slaps you down?

If you don't want to be treated like a troll, grasp this clue... don't act like one. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
MattusMaximus said:
That's me, by the way :D

(Actually, I teach both high school and college level - full disclosure, yadda yadda)

Jerome, do you really expect, after all of your belligerence and obfuscation on a variety of topics on this Forum, to garner any sympathy whatsoever when someone slaps you down?

If you don't want to be treated like a troll, grasp this clue... don't act like one. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I do not expect to be treated any particular way.

Your posts evidence who you are, they have no reflection on me.
 
arthwollipot said:
You misunderstand my question.

What is it that makes them suppositions as opposed to conclusions based on evidence, which is what the rest of us see them as?
Click to expand...

I presented the admitted contradiction of the supposition in relation to the evidence. Please explain why if the evidence disputes the original supposition we are to understand the contradiction as evidence of said supposition.

This is not logical in the least.
 
JEROME DA GNOME said:
I presented the admitted contradiction of the supposition in relation to the evidence. Please explain why if the evidence disputes the original supposition we are to understand the contradiction as evidence of said supposition.

This is not logical in the least.
Click to expand...
So why do you think no-one agrees with you?
 
JEROME DA GNOME said:
I do not expect to be treated any particular way.
Click to expand...


Really?! So why the sudden appeal to the martyr syndrome?

"Oh boo-hoo! Look at the big mean college professor being so nasty to poor little old me... I'm just trying to get at the truth and he's being mean because he knows he's wrong! Boo-hoo!"

Please... your hypocrisy is showing Jerome. For dramatic effect, you should try nailing yourself to a cross next time :rolleyes:


Your posts evidence who you are, they have no reflection on me.
Click to expand...


Correct, and people are perfectly free to judge me as they wish. And it is your posts that reflect on who you are... I leave it to others to make up their own minds about you.
 
JEROME DA GNOME said:
Indoctrinated belief system.

Ever notice the vile spewed and the derision tossed on those that do not follow the prescribed path? Look religion and you see the same attitude.
Click to expand...
So what do you think the reason is for the indoctination? Why does the scientific establishment engage in such indoctrination? What do they have to gain by maintaining their wrongness?
 
Just adding a little fuel to the fire:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/space/20080512/sc_space/pieceofmissingcosmicmatterfound

There can be no doubt that what they're discussing is plasma, and it's hot, and its in filaments:

A team of astrophysicists has now found evidence of part of the missing half [of baryonic mass previously predicted but unobserved] in a bridge-like filament connecting two clusters of galaxies.

Along with dark matter, the missing baryonic matter is thought to form an enormous spider web of tendrils that connect galaxy clusters, which sit on threads and knots in the web.

The missing part of this matter was thought to be a hot, ultra-thin gas haze of very low density between larger structures. Its hellacious temperature means that it only emits far-ultraviolet and X-ray radiation.
Click to expand...

(Link in text is from original Yahoo article.)

Could it be (and I'm far, far iout on the intergalactic limb here) that this might represent a partial blending of plasma and standard cosmologies? It takes from plasma that which make sense (the intergalactic structure of the universe from PC without having to swallow the electric sun stuff, it seems to me. Tell me what y'all think.

The finding is detailed in the May 2008 issue of the journal Astronomy and Astrophysics Letters.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
shadron said:
Just adding a little fuel to the fire:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/space/20080512/sc_space/pieceofmissingcosmicmatterfound

There can be no doubt that what they're discussing is plasma, and it's hot, and its in filaments:



(Link in text is from original Yahoo article.)

Could it be (and I'm far, far iout on the intergalactic limb here) that this might represent a partial blending of plasma and standard cosmologies? It takes from plasma that which make sense (the intergalactic structure of the universe from PC without having to swallow the electric sun stuff, it seems to me. Tell me what y'all think.
Click to expand...
(emphasis added).

In a word, no.

It's not pure H (as is required in PC - recall that all elements other than He are primordial).

It's not anywhere near the right size for PC's plasma filaments, even with the most generous assumptions about fractal scaling (per Lerner) ... it's far too big.

And its mass is far larger than that which is derived from the analysis of the x-ray observations (per the weak lensing observations, reported in an earlier paper), indicating that CDM is the dominant (mass) component.

Here is the preprint; if anyone can make a case that what Werner et al. report is consistent with PC, go for it!

------------------------------------------------------------------

There's a misunderstanding in your post anyway ... in textbook astrophysics, the baryonic component of the universe is largely plasma anyway - the ISM (inter-stellar medium) and IGM (inter-galactic medium) are plasmas (i.e. ionised gases), although some of the ISM's phases are only weakly ionised (giant molecular clouds). In particular, the IGM in rich clusters is a hot plasma (~10 million degrees), which is what is detected in the Abell 222 and Abell 223 clusters which this filament connects.

It's been known for quite some time - in standard, textbook cosmology - that the universe is composed of a network of filaments, sheets, walls, ... and that rich clusters are at the intersections of these (check out the Millennium simulation for some very cool images!) - the 'cosmic web'. This has nothing to do with PC; it's a result expected from the CDM+baryonic content of the universe and General Relativity. It has also been observed, in the way galaxies are distributed, for a while now (as far back as 1978, it seems).

What's new, in this paper, is the first direct observation of one of these filaments, as IGM, and in particular, in the deathless prose of astronomy, of the WHIM (warm-hot intergalactic medium). As the baryonic mass of galaxies in clusters is an almost trivial fraction of the total baryonic mass of those clusters (the IGM dominates), so too in the filaments (the galaxies in the filaments are a minor component, baryonic mass-wise).

Courtesy of Zeuzzz, we are to understand that PC explicitly rejects the idea of an origin for the universe, and that the large-scale structure of the universe can be accounted for only by considering the role of giant, universe-wide, currents.
 
Stop the bickering, please, and stay on topic. You need to make your points about posts presented, without resorting to attacking the poster.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: chillzero
 
DeiRenDopa said:
(emphasis added).

In a word, no.

It's not pure H (as is required in PC - recall that all elements other than He are primordial).
Click to expand...


Wrong.

It's not anywhere near the right size for PC's plasma filaments, even with the most generous assumptions about fractal scaling (per Lerner) ... it's far too big.
Click to expand...


The fractal scaling relationship of dimension 2, that was a key prediction of plasma cosmology, and has been independantly confirmed recently, shouldn't you say?

And its mass is far larger than that which is derived from the analysis of the x-ray observations (per the weak lensing observations, reported in an earlier paper), indicating that CDM is the dominant (mass) component.

Here is the preprint; if anyone can make a case that what Werner et al. report is consistent with PC, go for it!
Click to expand...



How much dark matter and relitivistic dark gnomes does he need to invoke to explain this filamentary shape then?

Do you understand how gravity works? ie, a purely attractive field?

Either there is another force at work here other than gravity on large scales, or you have to invoke tonnes of mysterious matter to enable gravity to acount for this shape.

And PC does not ignore GR, it includes GR as a vital component. Alfven wasn;t a big fan, but that was before the evidence was conclusive, so thats an acceptable position to take back then. Modern PC proponents use GR all the time.

------------------------------------------------------------------

There's a misunderstanding in your post anyway ... in textbook astrophysics, the baryonic component of the universe is largely plasma anyway - the ISM (inter-stellar medium) and IGM (inter-galactic medium) are plasmas (i.e. ionised gases), although some of the ISM's phases are only weakly ionised (giant molecular clouds). In particular, the IGM in rich clusters is a hot plasma (~10 million degrees), which is what is detected in the Abell 222 and Abell 223 clusters which this filament connects.

It's been known for quite some time - in standard, textbook cosmology - that the universe is composed of a network of filaments, sheets, walls, ... and that rich clusters are at the intersections of these (check out the Millennium simulation for some very cool images!) - the 'cosmic web'. This has nothing to do with PC; it's a result expected from the CDM+baryonic content of the universe and General Relativity. It has also been observed, in the way galaxies are distributed, for a while now (as far back as 1978, it seems).

What's new, in this paper, is the first direct observation of one of these filaments, as IGM, and in particular, in the deathless prose of astronomy, of the WHIM (warm-hot intergalactic medium). As the baryonic mass of galaxies in clusters is an almost trivial fraction of the total baryonic mass of those clusters (the IGM dominates), so too in the filaments (the galaxies in the filaments are a minor component, baryonic mass-wise).

Courtesy of Zeuzzz, we are to understand that PC explicitly rejects the idea of an origin for the universe, and that the large-scale structure of the universe can be accounted for only by considering the role of giant, universe-wide, currents.
Click to expand...


"Universe wide currents?"

Your last few posts at least showed a slight comprehension of PC, what on earth happened in this one?

And be patient, there are answers to your previous "evidence against plasma cosmology" points, so i wouldn't spend too much time on other supposed problems with PC until I have addressed your previous ones. But its not going to be any time soon, as i said, the real world is beckoning at the moment
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom