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).
Wrong.
Excuse me, but ...
Lerner's paper "Galactic Model of Element Formation", which you recommended, is very clear - only H is 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.
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?
Er, no.
As I have already said (do you need me to cite the post numbers?), results from SDSS, 2dF, WMAP, etc are clear ... the large scale structure of the observed universe is inconsistent with a "
fractal scaling relationship of dimension 2".
I would appreciate it if you could take the trouble to read the posts I write.
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!
How much dark matter and relitivistic dark gnomes does he need to invoke to explain this filamentary shape then?
About the same amount, proportionately (to the baryons), as is found in galaxy halos and rich clusters; and about the same as is found from analysis of CMB observations.
In other words, the results are consistent.
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.
Zeuzzz, please ...
You have made it abundantly clear that, for you, the logic of false dichotomy is acceptable in PC.
You have also, many many times, shown a pretty astonishing degree of ignorance of the relevant details of the ΛCDM models you criticise. Now parodies from the likes of JdG or ynot are perhaps understandable (they do not seem to have much of an education in textbook physics), but for you it's hard to avoid a conclusion of borderline trolling (given your admitted physics fluency).
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.
Really?!?
I may have missed it, but none of the Lerner or Peratt papers I read - which you recommended as being the core of contemporary PC, remember - mention it at all.
Worse, Lerner's fractal scaling is meant to apply to the universe as a whole, which in turn implies that GR is unimportant to the universe as a whole ...
------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
"Universe wide currents?"
Your last few posts at least showed a slight comprehension of PC, what on earth happened in this one?
Huh?
In Lerner's model, the fractal scaling relationship arises from "magnetically confined filaments", and these are, courtesy of Alfvén and Peratt, current carrying.
In Lerner's model, the fractal scaling relationship is universal, ergo there are universe-wide currents ...
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
OK.
But, as I said, I'm pretty much done ... I thank you for pointing to the Lerner and Peratt papers; reading them made me realise just how little work has been done, and why (at almost every turn, quantifying something in PC turns up severe inconsistencies, either internal or with well-established observations).
