Plasma Cosmology - Woo or not

[Zeuzzz]

And here a fine example of the sort of post you keep writing that robinson specifically does not want in that thread he started. I'm quite sure that if you replied to my post with concrete science, without all the personal jibes, off point attacks on peoples credentials, and logical fallacies, that would be fine, but you seem completely incapable of doing so.

Oh?

Of course! Silly me ... I missed all the references to papers published in relevant peer-reviewed journals, by astronomers ...

Wait! That's right! "Thornhill, W." got his PhD in astrophysics from ... where, exactly, Zeuzzz? And what was his thesis topic again? I seem to have forgotten.

Have you read the paper? Care to ellaborate on it? Or are just using the logical fallacy of guilt by association YET AGAIN?

Oh, and those suppressors of truth, how dare they ask that pretty pictures and word salad about 'scaling laws' be backed up with equations and statistical analyses before they publish papers! I mean, the sheer cheek!!

If you want the scaling laws for the dense plasma focus, just ask! Instead of jumping to instantaneous (completely false) conclusions.

For the Filippov dense plasma focus type fusion device (co-incidentally the one that Lerner is currently working with at the focus fusion society) the scaling law for the axisymmetric boundary of the pinched, or focused, hot plasma column can be represented by;

[latex]B_{c}=4z(\mu\frac{M}{m})B=0.8z(\mu\frac{M}{m})I/r[/latex]

In other words, the confining magnetic field in the plasmoid is proportional to the initial magnetic field at the cathode, multiplied by the atomic mass and the atomic charge.

References:
http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0401/0401126.pdf
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0710/0710.3149.pdf

For the dense plasma focus, which is a slightly different mechanism, the force free configuration can be derived, which is a bit more complex, but based on the same principle.

And I can absolutely guaran-damn-tee that i have posted far more "equations and statistics" than you have. Infact, have you posted any? how do I not know that you dont understand, or can use, the most basic mathematic principles? (the thread on magnetic reconnection and amperes law in on the x,y,z axis certainly implied this)

And it wouldn't do to mention that Bostick's 1986 (huh! robinson is so certain that this is a brand new revolution!!) paper has got all of 11 citations (in > 20 years!), so it certainly got a very cool reception indeed from both the astrophysics and plasma physics communities. And he himself obviously didn't think much of it ... he cited it only once.

Ah yes ...

Ahh yes, yet ANOTHER logical fallacy. Citations certainly don't imply veracity or disproof of the published science, though it may give an indication of popularity, which is hardly a scientific comment. Haven't we been over this before? Do you need reading glasses?

Now who did I accuse of being enjoying being ignorant and enjoying flaunting that ignorance? Why the OP himself, robinson! And why, he-who-knows-plasma-so-well (I'm talking about you here Zeuzzz) did I make that accusation? HINT: read some of robinson's own posts on how bluntly (and ignorantly) he disses what others write ... then compare it with his own words, on a topic he started ... and then this (emphasis added): "In regards to plasma, cold plasma is still several thousand degrees. When discussing any matter that is at a million degrees K, we are talking about plasma. By definition."

Now, as to what others think; what say you to the inferred state of offense of the person who wrote this? (emphasis added)Or thisAnd let's not forget that this is the JREF forum, the Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology section.

Any more world salad? I'm real hungry, but I prefer some meat in my salad, and unfortunately, your post contains none.

In future I'm going to choose to ignore these types of posts DRD. Informed people can see straight through them. You see the type of responce I have to resort to when you write posts like this? I dont like doing it, but your attitude leaves me no option.

(awaiting the argumentative responce)

 

[DeiRenDopa]

What is the evidence against Plasma Cosmology? Part 1: standard meaning of 'cosmology'.

Maybe this should be a separate thread, in light of robinson's latest comment?

Well, I think it best to keep it here, for now; it'll all be in the one place.

In all the following, I shall take "Plasma Cosmology" (PC) to mean "as described or presented in papers published by E. Lerner and A. Peratt (and any et al.s) in relevant peer-reviewed journals".

This first part (Part 1) addresses 'cosmology' in its standard, contemporary meaning of the history, large-scale structure, and constituent dynamics of the universe.

Later parts will look at 'cosmology' as it is defined within PC itself, and PC as a branch of science (i.e. problems with PC's approach/method, as opposed to the content; 'one level up' if you will).

Without further ado, and in no particular order (NOTE: this is not a complete list, nor is it intended to be):

1. Observations show that the universe has a structure that is inconsistent with Lerner's fractal scaling relationship (Zeuzzz: what is the best, most recent of Lerner's published papers on this?). Here is an SDSS PR showing the observed large-scale structure; here is the corresponding paper.

2. Observations of x-ray and radio sources in the HDF (N) field do not show attenuation of radio sources with redshift; this is inconsistent with Lerner's explanation of the nature of the CMB (Zeuzzz: what is the best, most recent of Lerner's published papers on this?). Here is one paper presenting relevant observations (there are dozens of others, not all on the HDF (N) field!)

3. WMAP observations detect ~400 point sources, almost all of which can be matched to known radio sources; this is inconsistent with Lerner's explanation of the nature of the CMB. Here is the preprint of the relevant WMAP 5-year results.

4. Lerner's model of the CMB is inconsistent with its observed SED (spectral energy distribution: COBE observed that the SED is a blackbody (example - note that the error bars are 400 sigma!); Lerner says this about how well his model fits (emphasis added): "[the Lerner model] has accurately matched the spectrum of the CBR using the best-quality data set from COBE[27]. This fit, it should be noted, involved only three free pamenters and achieved a probability of 85%." In case you, dear reader, don't quite get this, I'll spell it out more clearly: 'a probability of 85%' is not, repeat not, an accurate match ... the error bars are so small that '85%' represents a total failure to match (you'd need something like 99.99% to still be in the game).

5. No "dense, magnetically confined plasma filaments that pervade the intergalactic medium" have been observed (to the best of my knowledge) - these hypothesised objects are central to Lerner's CMB model, and they should have been observed, directly or indirectly, by now (Zeuzzz: in which paper(s) does Lerner describe what their observational footprint would be (other than the CMB) and attempt to explain why they have not yet been observed?)

6. The time dilation observed in high-z Ia supernovae is inconsistent with Lerner's proposed mechanism for the Hubble relationship ('tired light') - an example.

7. The CMB angular power spectrum expected in Lerner's model has not been estimated/calculated (so the now excellent observations haven't yet been used to test the Lerner model). Of course, this is not evidence against Lerner's PC, merely a note on a test it hasn't yet been subject to.

8. Lerner's PC requires the fractal scaling relationship to apply at large scales, including beyond the observable universe, otherwise the night sky would not be dark (Olbers' paradox). The night sky is dark, and at large scales the observed universe does not follow Lerner's fractal scaling relationship, ergo you can rule out Lerner's PC every clear night (away from big cities!), by going outside and seeing a dark sky.

(continued)

9. In Lerner's PC, the CMB is isotropised and thermalised starlight, and has but one temperature (pretty much the same as is observed), with no free parameters. Observations consistent with the CMB being at different temperatures at different redshifts would therefore be difficult if not impossible for his model to account for.

In December, 2000, the ESO issued a PR "VLT Observations Confirm that the Universe Was Hotter in the Past" ... the key part, for our purposes here, is that the team "derive[d] the temperature T of the CMBR at this large distance and early cosmic epoch [z=2.34] and [placed] a very firm lower limit on this temperature. The final result is that T is hotter than 6 K and cooler than 14 K" (emphasis added). Here is the paper with these results.

There have been several subsequent papers reporting firm detections of constraints on the temperature of the CMB at high-z; this quite recent one is a good example: the authors report a temperature of 9.15 +/- 0.72 K at z = 2.41837.

(continued)

One more on the CMB: the dipole.

The CMB dipole was discovered shortly after the CMB itself; it is explained, in standard astrophysics, as the motion of the solar system barycentre with respect to the CMB frame, and subsequent work showed that its magnitude and direction are consistent with the estimated distribution of mass 'locally' (which actually means out to 'the Great Attractor' and beyond!)*

As I understand it - and I freely admit that I may not, properly - there should be no CMB dipole if the CMB originates per Lerner's model. Or, more accurately, the SED (spectral energy distribution) of the CMB will not be a blackbody, as the CMB photons we detect from the sources, along any line of sight, will be redshifted by different amounts, as those sources will be moving, relative to us, at a wide range of speeds. Unless the sources have some large-scale structure - when integrated over the optical depth of those sources - there cannot be a dipole. Further, even if there is some integrated large-scale structure, it should exhibit an integrated fractal scaling (per Zeuzzz), and be essentially isotopic (per Lerner).

In summary: the observations which establish the existence of the CMB dipole would, very likely, be very difficult to explain using Lerner's model.

Of course, Lerner is quite explicit about one item on his 'to do' list: he has not yet published anything on what the CMB angular power spectrum should look like under his model. It is clear that the dipole is part of this 'to do'.

* special note to robinson: if you'd like references to the papers in which these results are published, please just ask me, OK?

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Large-scale structure (and fractal scaling), continued.

... snip ...

I'll grant you that you may not, yet, have grokked that 'large-scale structure' inextricably includes the meaning 'right up to the very edge of the observable universe', so while interpretation of some SDSS data may be consistent with a fractal dimension of ~2 up to some (modest) scale (~Mpc or ~tens of Mpc, say), that's only a quite narrow range of scales.

For example, in this publication (L. Pietronero, 2005), titled "Basic properties of galaxy clustering in the light of recent results from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey", Pietronero and his colleagues note that;

"The recent SDSS results for these statistics are in good agreement with those obtained by us through analyses of many previous samples, confirming in particular that the galaxy distribution is well described by a fractal dimension D ~ 2 up to a scale of at least 20 Mpc/h.", the exact value for the fractal dimension that plasma cosmology proponents predicted years back.

Yeah Jones et al. do say that ...

However, I think you should have been a bit more careful, and
a) acknowledge that 'at least 20 Mpc/h' is quite modest with respect to the scales probed by SDSS (etc);
b) note that the Jones et al. (2005) paper is at least as much about how to derive the 3D distribution of mass from surveys such as SDSS as it is about fractal scaling (see Swanson et al. (2008), for example, on whether Jones et al. (2005) were right or not about 'luminosity bias')
c) enter a giant caveat concerning, at the very least, a need to show that the predicted PC fractal dimension is the same (or similar) as that in Jones et al. (2005) ... I strongly suspect the two are actually incompatible.

Further support for this conclusion has been offered by Yurij Baryshev et al, (Fractal Approach to Large-Scale Galaxy Distribution 2005) "modern extensive redshift-based 3-d maps have revealed the ``hidden'' fractal dimension of about 2, and have confirmed superclustering at scales even up to 500 Mpc (e.g. the Sloan Great Wall). On scales, where the fractal analysis is possible in completely embedded spheres, a power--law density field has been found. The fractal dimension D =2.2 +- 0.2 was directly obtained from 3-d maps and R_{hom} has expanded from 10 Mpc to scales approaching 100 Mpc. In concordance with the 3-d map results, modern all sky galaxy counts in the interval 10^m - 15^m give a 0.44m-law which corresponds to D=2.2 within a radius of 100h^{-1}_{100} Mpc. We emphasize that the fractal mass--radius law of galaxy clustering has become a key phenomenon in observational cosmology.".

Yeah, but ...

This reminds me of the Peratt spiral galaxy model ... his simulation can produce some nice 'look at the pictures!' similarity while completely overlooking a fatal flaw.

In this case the whole issue of 'galaxy bias' - which is tied up with 'luminosity bias', and much more - is given rather short shrift. I think you'll find, when you dig into the details, that this Baryshev and Teerikorpi paper should be rather troubling for any PC proponent. For starters, it concludes that there is a cross-over scale (to homogeneity, from fractal scaling); PC does not permit large-scale homogeneity. For seconds, the scaling applies to a universe ruled by GR, with CDM built in to the logic chain that leads to the fractal scaling conclusions; to claim that this paper is consistent with PC would require rather a lot of work to re-do the calculations without GR and CDM.

... snip ...

About BAO ...

There's one clear signal in the large-scale structure survey observations that has been reported recently: BAO (Baryon Acoustic Oscillation); here is a recent paper on measuring it at z ~ 0.2 and ~0.35, in the 2dFGRS and SDSS datasets.

While the name of the signal (BAO) contains a nod to some aspects of ΛCDM cosmological models, its existence is independent of its name.

I don't recall reading about it in the Jones et al. (2005) paper, which is not surprising ... the first paper announcing detection of a BAO signal was published in 2005, and the scale at which it is clear is larger than what Jones et al. were looking at.

It's also not in the Baryshev and Teerikorpi (2005) paper (as far as I recall). Its omission in that paper is a little strange - while it hadn't been detected at the time they wrote their paper, Baryshev and Teerikorpi should certainly have known about it, and as their paper has a general scope (rather than the narrow 'bias' scope of Jones et al.), it would certainly have been relevant.

In any case, I wonder if any 'PC papers' on fractal scaling predicted a 'BAO' signal? Or can account for it in any way? Can you shed some light Zeuzzz?

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Ha!

You think that the fundamental property of scale invarience in plasma creating identical structures over many orders of magnitude is comparible to scaling a rotating lawn sprinkler???

Of course not, nor did I say it was.

If you don't understand the analogy I was making, I'll be more than happy to explain it, in more detail.

The two key points I was trying to make are:

1) that a similarity in structure, by itself, is not indicative of anything much.

2) even if a mechanism, or model, can be shown to produce a certain structure (a necessary condition), it must also not contain fatal flaws (a sufficient condition).

In the case of "scale invarience [sic] in plasma creating identical structures over many orders of magnitude", the sufficient condition is missing. For example:

> the plasma scaling has not, as far as I know, been shown to be the same when the gravitational forces on the constituent (charged) objects are included

> the observed motions and distributions of objects such as stars are not consistent with them being dominated by the electromagnetic force (the motions give the present day forces operating; the distributions the history of those forces, over times as long as billions of years).

Why dont you write up a paper on how the spiral shape in your toilet is actually how galaxies form? Because that would be ridiculous; we know that that does not scale. We DO know that plasma scales. Do you even read the posts that you write DRD?

And these type of purely subjective posts about your opinion of which theory is more valid are getting quite tiring.

Huh?

I wasn't aware that what I was writing about was "which theory is more valid" (except in a very limited way).

In fact, I've been trying very hard to focus on "Plasma Cosmology", and whether it is woo or not. And I have limited myself to only the materials you have chosen to declare are PC, or written by 'plasma cosmologists'.

But, perhaps I've inadvertently written something about 'other theories', in the sense of 'more valid'; later today I'll go check, and if I find anything, I'll write clarifications.

I could write the exact same post in reverse about you and your explanations for this, but what would it achieve? Nothing. (Other than annoying people that dont agree with your personal opinion) Robinson pointed this out very well previously.



1. Provide direct evidence = "Cherry picking"

2. Compare two theories = "declare - by fiat? - that there are only two games in town"

3. Show observations that contradict a theory = "Write up a parody of B so that it seems inconsistent with observation [...] lie, but try to ensure the lies are not blatant."

4. Show how the observations are relevant to the theory = "list how well the cherry-picked aspect of P matches observation"

5. State your opinion that the theory you support is correct = "declare P is, obviously so superior to B that you can't understand why anyone still works on B."


See what I mean?

Actually, no. (emphasis added)

It seems you have not understood what I wrote at all; would you be interested in a detailed clarification?

[wait for the accusations of me being a "woo dumping seagull" because I took time to contribute something to this thread ]

Happy to oblige ...

As it turns out, in one of my replies to an earlier, very long, post of yours I covered a frustration I feel (I wrote it without having read this post of yours that I am now replying to):

You may wish to look into a mirror - I feel that almost all the 'confrontation' stems from your posting behaviour, as I indicated in an earlier post:

If you:

* persistently continue to not answer (refuse to answer?) direct questions asked of the posts you yourself have written, on content that is directly relevant

* persistently mis-represent what others who have taken the trouble to actually read the material you provide wrote

* frequently engage in 'drive by' spamming (e.g. on JdG's 'redshifts'), i.e. obviously do not even bother to determine the context before posting

* change the key definitions (e.g. "Plasma Cosmology") you use, several times, in the course of just one thread, without acknowledgment

... and so on

why do you think you deserve respect?

Next ...

And, to restate my last point (before I got distracted with this reply);

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

Meanwhile, I'll let you give yourselves a pat on the back and stick to your conviction that you have falsified PC completely for the next month or so, but, to paraphrase good old arnie; I'll be back.

Hmm ...

And who was it, just a few short sentences earlier, who wrote "this [thread] seems to be descending into too much of a confrontational style for my liking"?

And who is it who has, almost always, ignored posts ('confrontational' or not) about inconsistencies in what they have posted (for example, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here)?

(extract only, and the links have been lost; emphasis added).

So it seems that the only time you take "time to contribute something to this thread" is when something you read gets you sufficiently annoyed.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

And here a fine example of the sort of post you keep writing that robinson specifically does not want in that thread he started. I'm quite sure that if you replied to my post with concrete science, without all the personal jibes, off point attacks on peoples credentials, and logical fallacies, that would be fine, but you seem completely incapable of doing so.

It will come as no surprise, I'm sure, that I see things a little differently ...

You see, I have reached an interim conclusion on the answer to the question of whether PC is woo or not (and I stated it in an earlier post). Based on that tentative conclusion, I assess each of the posts on 'plasma' as to whether it is, primarily, woo or not.

So, until you can return to this thread and at least start to answer some of the dozens of posts (and hundreds of questions) on PC - you are the only one who claims to be able to speak, positively, about PC - I see no alternative to pointing out, as sharply as I see fit, that what you write is (or contains) woo.

After all, this is the Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology section of the JREF forum!

Oh?

Of course! Silly me ... I missed all the references to papers published in relevant peer-reviewed journals, by astronomers ...

Wait! That's right! "Thornhill, W." got his PhD in astrophysics from ... where, exactly, Zeuzzz? And what was his thesis topic again? I seem to have forgotten.

Have you read the paper? Care to ellaborate on it? Or are just using the logical fallacy of guilt by association YET AGAIN?

I'll take the fifth ... no, the Zeuzzz defence ...

But how about this: you tell every reader of this thread whether "Thornhill, W." is Wallace Thornhill or not, and we'll take it from there, OK?

Or will this be another of the (hundreds) of questions you 'take the Zeuzzz' on?

Oh, and those suppressors of truth, how dare they ask that pretty pictures and word salad about 'scaling laws' be backed up with equations and statistical analyses before they publish papers! I mean, the sheer cheek!!

If you want the scaling laws for the dense plasma focus, just ask! Instead of jumping to instantaneous (completely false) conclusions.

For the Filippov dense plasma focus type fusion device (co-incidentally the one that Lerner is currently working with at the focus fusion society) the scaling law for the axisymmetric boundary of the pinched, or focused, hot plasma column can be represented by;

[latex]B_{c}=4z(\mu\frac{M}{m})B=0.8z(\mu\frac{M}{m})I/r[/latex]

In other words, the confining magnetic field in the plasmoid is proportional to the initial magnetic field at the cathode, multiplied by the atomic mass and the atomic charge.

References:
http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0401/0401126.pdf
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0710/0710.3149.pdf

For the dense plasma focus, which is a slightly different mechanism, the force free configuration can be derived, which is a bit more complex, but based on the same principle.

Thank you Zeuzzz, thank you.

So, we may conclude from this, in the absence of something substantive from you (or a relevant reference), that "the scaling law for the axisymmetric boundary of the pinched, or focused, hot plasma column" "in the Filippov dense plasma focus type fusion device (co-incidentally the one that Lerner is currently working with at the focus fusion society)" is unlikely to be relevant to "the Vela pulsar" unless and until certain estimates are to hand; such as:

* "the confining magnetic field"

* "the initial magnetic field at the cathode"

* "the atomic mass and the atomic charge"

* and anything else in that nice equation for which you omitted to define any of the symbols (and which are not contained in any of the references you supplied).

Oh, and let's not omit other, relevant, things that relate to what we already know about the environment of the Velar pulsar.

Woo with equations is still woo.

And I can absolutely guaran-damn-tee that i have posted far more "equations and statistics" than you have. Infact, have you posted any? how do I not know that you dont understand, or can use, the most basic mathematic principles? (the thread on magnetic reconnection and amperes law in on the x,y,z axis certainly implied this)

If sol invictus, MattusMaximus, The Man, Tubbythin, Reality Check, or any of the others who actually engaged you in discussion on that topic are reading this, I'd like them to chime in.

For what it's worth, from what you wrote in that thread on that topic, in my opinion you displayed an appalling lack of understanding of some pretty basic stuff (and that's the charitable interpretation).

And it wouldn't do to mention that Bostick's 1986 (huh! robinson is so certain that this is a brand new revolution!!) paper has got all of 11 citations (in > 20 years!), so it certainly got a very cool reception indeed from both the astrophysics and plasma physics communities. And he himself obviously didn't think much of it ... he cited it only once.

Ah yes ...

Ahh yes, yet ANOTHER logical fallacy. Citations certainly don't imply veracity or disproof of the published science, though it may give an indication of popularity, which is hardly a scientific comment.

Er ... no.

In context, it is highly appropriate.

As robinson has pointed out, there has been an upswing in the use of the word 'plasma' in popsci articles on astronomy (well, he says so; let's assume it is so, for now).

And several others quickly corrected him - in saying that plasmas have been studied, in astrophysics, for decades (no revolution in sight).

Then you chip in with some PC woo, including a 1980s paper that clearly went nowhere.

No 'disproof of the published science' intended, nor of any relevance (robinson's thread is about linguistics, or sociology, or ... not science).

Haven't we been over this before? Do you need reading glasses?

Mine are fine ... it's yours that don't seem to be working ...

Now who did I accuse of being enjoying being ignorant and enjoying flaunting that ignorance? Why the OP himself, robinson! And why, he-who-knows-plasma-so-well (I'm talking about you here Zeuzzz) did I make that accusation? HINT: read some of robinson's own posts on how bluntly (and ignorantly) he disses what others write ... then compare it with his own words, on a topic he started ... and then this (emphasis added): "In regards to plasma, cold plasma is still several thousand degrees. When discussing any matter that is at a million degrees K, we are talking about plasma. By definition."

Now, as to what others think; what say you to the inferred state of offense of the person who wrote this? (emphasis added)Or thisAnd let's not forget that this is the JREF forum, the Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology section.

Any more world salad? I'm real hungry, but I prefer some meat in my salad, and unfortunately, your post contains none.

Really?

What, pray tell, is the definition of a plasma?

Is a plasma defined by temperature?

In future I'm going to choose to ignore these types of posts DRD. Informed people can see straight through them.

If you say so ...

I'd rather let them speak for themselves.

You see the type of responce I have to resort to when you write posts like this? I dont like doing it, but your attitude leaves me no option.

(awaiting the argumentative responce)

Well now ...

You could always start to answer some of the many, highly relevant, questions people have asked you, about the very material you yourself have posted ... that would be a nice response (oops, I mean 'responce').

 

[Tubbythin]

If sol invictus, MattusMaximus, The Man, Tubbythin, Reality Check, or any of the others who actually engaged you in discussion on that topic are reading this, I'd like them to chime in.

Well I thought he'd stopped posting on that thread because he'd been shown to be wrong and just kept changing his position. But what do I know?

You could always start to answer some of the many, highly relevant, questions people have asked you, about the very material you yourself have posted ... that would be a nice response (oops, I mean 'responce').

I'd particularly like to know why he deliberately lied here.

 

[sol invictus]

If sol invictus, MattusMaximus, The Man, Tubbythin, Reality Check, or any of the others who actually engaged you in discussion on that topic are reading this, I'd like them to chime in.

Zeuzzz was unable to produce a single quantitative and specific prediction of "plasma cosmology". Therefore (at least insofar as Zeuzzz represents it) it is not a scientific theory and cannot be compared or treated as one.

As far as I can tell, PC is a vague set of incoherent ideas connected mostly by the collective crankery of their proponents.

 

[Dancing David]

Um, DRD, he lacks the ability to explain his model in the face of evidence or reconstruct the model.

At best we have pictures "it looks like a cosmic bunny" and in some cases it does.

But the "EM forces providing some rigidity to the galactic stucture" we lack.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Apologies to all readers; I think I misunderstood what Zeuzzz wrote, and so responded inappropriately.

Here's what he wrote:

And I can absolutely guaran-damn-tee that i have posted far more "equations and statistics" than you have. Infact, have you posted any? how do I not know that you dont understand, or can use, the most basic mathematic principles? (the thread on magnetic reconnection and amperes law in on the x,y,z axis certainly implied this)

.

Zeuzzz seems to be asking whether I understand, and/or can use, "the most basic mathematic principles".

Zeuzzz also seems to be suggesting, somewhat obliquely, that what I wrote in "the thread on magnetic reconnection and amperes law in on the x,y,z axis" implies that I do understand these principles (or that I do not; there are rather a lot of negatives to parse out, either grammatically or mathematically).

My misunderstanding is that I thought the part in brackets ("(the thread on magnetic reconnection and amperes law in on the x,y,z axis certainly implied this)") referred to his understanding and ability to use the most basic mathematical principles.

So, Zeuzzz, I shall not 'take the Zeuzzz'* on this: you may judge for yourself, based on what I have written in the Arp objects, QSOs, Statistics thread. Be sure to keep reading, because it is likely that some of my future posts in that thread will be relevant to your question.

You may also, if you wish, read my other posts in the JREF forum, particularly those where I cite various papers and discuss their contents. You may draw any conclusion you wish concerning my understanding of, or ability to use, anything (whether 'the most basic mathematic principles', or how to tie shoelaces).

Concerning a more relevant question: as my posts in this thread have been almost entirely about "plasma cosmology" - particularly the drawing of provisional conclusions and the asking of questions on "plasma cosmology" material that you have supplied - surely it's more relevant to know whether my provisional conclusions and my questions are pertinent to the posts you wrote and the material you cited? And in that regard, doesn't you 'taking of the Zeuzzz' so often speak rather loudly (I won't mention the outright lying)?

* for readers new to this thread, I coined this phrase; it means 'do not answer a direct question, and do not even acknowledge that such a question has been asked', based on Zeuzzz' persistent behaviour, which I documented earlier.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Follow up:

... snip ...

Why dont you write up a paper on how the spiral shape in your toilet is actually how galaxies form? Because that would be ridiculous; we know that that does not scale. We DO know that plasma scales. Do you even read the posts that you write DRD?

And these type of purely subjective posts about your opinion of which theory is more valid are getting quite tiring.

Huh?

I wasn't aware that what I was writing about was "which theory is more valid" (except in a very limited way).

In fact, I've been trying very hard to focus on "Plasma Cosmology", and whether it is woo or not. And I have limited myself to only the materials you have chosen to declare are PC, or written by 'plasma cosmologists'.

But, perhaps I've inadvertently written something about 'other theories', in the sense of 'more valid'; later today I'll go check, and if I find anything, I'll write clarifications.

... snip ...

(emphasis added)

First, there has been some discussion of the recent x-ray observations of the 'cosmic web' filament connecting Abell 222 and Abell 223 (links in this thread given to some popsci articles and to the Werner et al. preprint). In some of my posts on that topic, I included a summary of parts of standard astrophysics, including the Millennium simulation (here, here, and here). This was not intended to be, in any way, a 'which theory is better' contribution, merely a summary of what the state of play is.

Second, in almost every one of my posts I have cited, or referred to, papers reporting astronomical observations. To the extent that the conversion of photon/electromagnetic radiation detection to clean data (such as magnitudes, colours, spectra) involves theories, then those posts of mine do assume the theories involved in those conversions are valid. However, I don't think this is relevant to this thread, if only because no PC proponent has ever said the astronomical data itself is wrong because the theories that went into producing it are invalid (nor do any say there is an alternative, PC, theory for this).

But perhaps some PC proponents do say that; any inputs Zeuzzz?

Third, in post #118, I summarised ever so briefly part of what Freeman and McNamara write in a book that a source Zeuzzz mentions cites. I also invited readers to take a look at another JREF forum thread, on the observational evidence for CDM. However, I think it would be a big stretch to say that those comments constitute me making a case for, or offering an opinion on, "which theory is more valid".

Fourth, in post #88, I said "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?" While in context I think what I meant is clear, I think it may lead a skimmer to a wrong conclusion. So, let me clarify it now (in case you were one of those skimmers Zeuzzz): I think this thread is about PC, and whether it is woo or not. Part of the process of getting to a conclusion involves looking at how well PC matches the relevant (astronomical) observations. Whether any other theory (singly or in combination) matches these observations, or any other astronomical observations, or does not match them, is irrelevant to this thread.

Finally, there is another set of words in post #88 that are relevant here:

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?

For the record, Zeuzzz did not answer that question (nor did anyone else).

For clarity, the question in its current context should read (much has been written since 5 May):

Would any reader who knows of posts in this thread which contain stuff based critically on 'Big Bang material' put forward to "refute" plasma cosmology please point them out?

 

[DeiRenDopa]

By a curious cosmic coincidence, BeAChooser did some drive-by spamming of another JREF Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology thread, almost at the same time Zeuzzz was doing the same thing in 'the robinson' thread! By a further strange coincidence, BAC posted some of the same material (or at least references to it)!!

This material is quite interesting, and relevant, to this thread.

First, referring to the SN 1987A material, Zeuzzz uses the term "plasma universe", while BAC the term "plasma cosmology"; this establishes them as synonyms (at least as far as this forum's two PC proponents are concerned).

Second, the references to pulsars and SN 1987A, in both sets of posts, establishes 'local' astronomical phenomena as within the scope of PC.

Third, two references offer mutually inconsistent accounts ('models', perhaps) of neutron stars/magnetars - links to a thunderblots site and an electri universe site (the former is pretty vehement that the latter is pure woo).

Fourth, one of the references makes a clear connection between x-ray observations of the Vela pulsar and what might be called neo-Velikovsky woo ("ancient witnesses observed such undulating phenomena stretching along the polar axis of the earth, when our planet moved through a more dense, more electrically active environment").

In addition to the material Zeuzzz had already introduced, and which is already under discussion (actually, awaiting Zeuzzz' answers to questions on it), there is one paper (by Healy and Peratt) that is new (and relevant).

 

[Zeuzzz]

Zeuzzz was unable to produce a single quantitative and specific prediction of "plasma cosmology". Therefore (at least insofar as Zeuzzz represents it) it is not a scientific theory and cannot be compared or treated as one.

I have already listed many past predictions from PC/PU that have turned out right over the years in the "something new under the sun thread", but at that time, you had me on ignore, so probably missed it.

I just realized anyway, you probably want future predictions? correct?

By a curious cosmic coincidence, BeAChooser did some drive-by spamming of another JREF Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology thread, almost at the same time Zeuzzz was doing the same thing in 'the robinson' thread! By a further strange coincidence, BAC posted some of the same material (or at least references to it)!!

This material is quite interesting, and relevant, to this thread.

First, referring to the SN 1987A material, Zeuzzz uses the term "plasma universe", while BAC the term "plasma cosmology"; this establishes them as synonyms (at least as far as this forum's two PC proponents are concerned).

Second, the references to pulsars and SN 1987A, in both sets of posts, establishes 'local' astronomical phenomena as within the scope of PC.

Third, two references offer mutually inconsistent accounts ('models', perhaps) of neutron stars/magnetars - links to a thunderblots site and an electri universe site (the former is pretty vehement that the latter is pure woo).

Fourth, one of the references makes a clear connection between x-ray observations of the Vela pulsar and what might be called neo-Velikovsky woo ("ancient witnesses observed such undulating phenomena stretching along the polar axis of the earth, when our planet moved through a more dense, more electrically active environment").

In addition to the material Zeuzzz had already introduced, and which is already under discussion (actually, awaiting Zeuzzz' answers to questions on it), there is one paper (by Healy and Peratt) that is new (and relevant).

Why on earth are you mentioning Velikovsky???? I dont think that he should be linked with anyone.

And the "electric universe site" is quite old now ( I think, I had not really seen it until it was brought up here a couple of days ago, but I may be wrong). Some of it seems interesting, and i'll have a look at it over the coming days, but I dont think it should not be taken as an authority on much.

Could we stop worrying if this should be categorized as this, or that, if this is actually cosmology, cosmogeny, if its astophysics or plasma physics, plasma cosmology or plasma universe, electric universe or electrodynamics, all I would say about lumping things into categories like this is that a lot of the EU stuff about online is controversial, such as some of the electric sun idea, some of the electric comets, electric crater formation theories, but some aspects of each are now accepted by PC proponents too, so the line between them is quite blurred. And i haven't started any threads here yet on any of them, as I said, patience is a virtue, the real world is beckoning at the mo, and I will try to answer the questions you have posed. You could check out the post I just wrote in the millisecond pulsar thread, I couldn't resist considering someone started a topic all about them; http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3711109&postcount=15

 

[DeiRenDopa]

... snip ...

By a curious cosmic coincidence, BeAChooser did some drive-by spamming of another JREF Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology thread, almost at the same time Zeuzzz was doing the same thing in 'the robinson' thread! By a further strange coincidence, BAC posted some of the same material (or at least references to it)!!

This material is quite interesting, and relevant, to this thread.

First, referring to the SN 1987A material, Zeuzzz uses the term "plasma universe", while BAC the term "plasma cosmology"; this establishes them as synonyms (at least as far as this forum's two PC proponents are concerned).

Second, the references to pulsars and SN 1987A, in both sets of posts, establishes 'local' astronomical phenomena as within the scope of PC.

Third, two references offer mutually inconsistent accounts ('models', perhaps) of neutron stars/magnetars - links to a thunderblots site and an electri universe site (the former is pretty vehement that the latter is pure woo).

Fourth, one of the references makes a clear connection between x-ray observations of the Vela pulsar and what might be called neo-Velikovsky woo ("ancient witnesses observed such undulating phenomena stretching along the polar axis of the earth, when our planet moved through a more dense, more electrically active environment").

In addition to the material Zeuzzz had already introduced, and which is already under discussion (actually, awaiting Zeuzzz' answers to questions on it), there is one paper (by Healy and Peratt) that is new (and relevant).

Why on earth are you mentioning Velikovsky???? I dont think that he should be linked with anyone.

Thanks for asking.

I acknowledge your question.

I agree it is relevant.

I might get around to answering it sometime in the next month or so ...

In the meantime, I stand by my statement: material cited, by PC proponents here in the JREF forum, as 100% certified 'plasma cosmology' includes strong, incontrovertible statements linking PC to what might be called neo-Velikovsky woo.

And the "electric universe site" is quite old now ( I think, I had not really seen it until it was brought up here a couple of days ago, but I may be wrong). Some of it seems interesting, and i'll have a look at it over the coming days, but I dont think it should not be taken as an authority on much.

I'm sure BeAChooser will be happy to know he has out of date plasma cosmology sources.

And it seems that you didn't actually read the material BAC posted, did you!?

For example: "© 1995 - 2005 by Dr. László Körtvélyessy", and "Last update: 2005-11-08"

And the date on the image you lifted (without attribution) from the holoscience site? 27 October 2004.

Could we stop worrying if this should be categorized as this, or that, if this is actually cosmology, cosmogeny, if its astophysics or plasma physics, plasma cosmology or plasma universe, electric universe or electrodynamics, all I would say about lumping things into categories like this is that a lot of the EU stuff about online is controversial, such as some of the electric sun idea, some of the electric comets, electric crater formation theories, but some aspects of each are now accepted by PC proponents too, so the line between them is quite blurred. And i haven't started any threads here yet on any of them, as I said, patience is a virtue, the real world is beckoning at the mo, and I will try to answer the questions you have posed. You could check out the post I just wrote in the millisecond pulsar thread, I couldn't resist considering someone started a topic all about them; http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3711109&postcount=15

Actually, you've put your finger on two areas where PC clearly distinguishes itself from science (at least, modern astronomy, astrophysics, etc):
* lack of a set of open, peer-reviewed publications
* tolerance of extreme inconsistencies.

The first, of course, may be regarded as little more than a mere inconvenience ... or as quite enough to earn PC its 'woo wings'.

On the second there is no room for respectful disagreement - from your own posts and in the material you have cited, I have seen little (if any) acknowledgment that serious inconsistencies (internal, with experimental results, with observations, ...) even exist, let alone that any 'plasma cosmologist' is deeply concerned about them.

However you choose to define 'woo', such insouciance to such a central feature of science would surely rank high in the list of criteria ...

 

[Zeuzzz]

Thanks for asking.

I acknowledge your question.

I agree it is relevant.

I might get around to answering it sometime in the next month or so ...

In the meantime, I stand by my statement: material cited, by PC proponents here in the JREF forum, as 100% certified 'plasma cosmology' includes strong, incontrovertible statements linking PC to what might be called neo-Velikovsky woo.

Ha! What has Velikovskys many completely mad ideas got to do with PC? Whatever makes it easier for you to deal with....

Like when you tried to link PC with ID'ers, only to find its in fact you that puts your faith into the biggest event of god given creation in history, supporting a ridiculous prophetic approach as opposed to a realistic actualistic approach to cosmology.

Is this conversation geting anyone anywhere? You see what happens when you write posts like this?

I'm sure BeAChooser will be happy to know he has out of date plasma cosmology sources.

And it seems that you didn't actually read the material BAC posted, did you!?

For example: "© 1995 - 2005 by Dr. László Körtvélyessy", and "Last update: 2005-11-08"

From what I know, I thought that the book written by Dr. László Körtvélyessy was published in 1995, but I may be wrong, and as I said, I really haven't looked into much material on that page. By the looks of it, your right, it does seem to have been updated recently. I'll have a look at it when i've more time, but i'm not familiar with this particular material. Might be some hidden gems in there. I did hear that Eric Crew wrote favorably about the book, so it may be an interesting perspective to look into. http://www.electric-universe.de/printings/biography.html

Actually, you've put your finger on two areas where PC clearly distinguishes itself from science (at least, modern astronomy, astrophysics, etc):
* lack of a set of open, peer-reviewed publications
* tolerance of extreme inconsistencies.

The first, of course, may be regarded as little more than a mere inconvenience ... or as quite enough to earn PC its 'woo wings'.

On the second there is no room for respectful disagreement - from your own posts and in the material you have cited, I have seen little (if any) acknowledgment that serious inconsistencies (internal, with experimental results, with observations, ...) even exist, let alone that any 'plasma cosmologist' is deeply concerned about them.

However you choose to define 'woo', such insouciance to such a central feature of science would surely rank high in the list of criteria ...

Entirely Subjective. And just because you dont have access to lots of publications does not mean they dont exist. Should I start a thread about the tremendous amount of inconsistencies with modern cosmology? or do they not count as inconsistancies when applied to the model that you adhere to? rather "problems to be sorted out", while the only thing keeping the theory from not being falsified is the faith you attribute to it?

Pissing contest over. You're doing it again DRD..... nothing productive comes of posts like this......

 

[Reality Check]

Hi Zeuzzz:
Have you an answer to the question that I asked a couple of times before:
How important is Peratt's plasma model of galaxy formation to plasma cosmology?

Or to put it another way:
If we test the predictions of Peratt's plasma model of galaxy formation and find that they are wrong then is plasma cosmology wrong?

 

[Zeuzzz]

Hi Zeuzzz:
Have you an answer to the question that I asked a couple of times before:
How important is Peratt's plasma model of galaxy formation to plasma cosmology?

Its quite important, its the most detailed current description of a transient galaxy model which fits well within a PC framework, mainly due to the fact that it not only uses gravity but shows that EM forces can play a role in the formation and structure of galaxies, which is an idea very compatible with plasma cosmology proposals. The current model of galaxies could be tweaked in a number of places, remove a few of the knomes (by replacing the need for them with plasma effects), and some of the finite boundaries placed on on it (that ultimately result from the Big Bang aspect) and it could also match within a PC framework. Dark matter and other such things are a real issue though, currently only the various known types of matter exist in PC, as there has not been any sort of conclusive proof of the non baryonic matter that is thought to make up most of the universe.

Or to put it another way:
If we test the predictions of Peratt's plasma model of galaxy formation and find that they are wrong then is plasma cosmology wrong?

If tomorrow it was suddenly discovered that there is infact not a huge mass (super-massive black hole) at the centre of the galaxy, would that falsify the Big Bang? no, I dont think so. So neither would some inconsistencies with Peratts. List them if you will. And, dont forget, PC will not patch up all the glaring holes in its model with tonnes of mysterious matter or new ad hoc physics, what you see is, essentially, what you get.

 

[Reality Check]

Its quite important, its the most detailed current description of a transient galaxy model which fits well within a PC framework, mainly due to the fact that it not only uses gravity but shows that EM forces can play a role in the formation and structure of galaxies, which is an idea very compatible with plasma cosmology proposals. The current model of galaxies could be tweaked in a number of places, remove a few of the knomes (by replacing the need for them with plasma effects), and some of the finite boundaries placed on on it (that ultimately result from the Big Bang aspect) and it could also match within a PC framework. Dark matter and other such things are a real issue though, currently only the various known types of matter exist in PC, as there has not been any sort of conclusive proof of the non baryonic matter that is thought to make up most of the universe.

If tomorrow it was suddenly discovered that there is infact not a huge mass (super-massive black hole) at the centre of the galaxy, would that falsify the Big Bang? no, I dont think so. So neither would some inconsistencies with Peratts. List them if you will. And, dont forget, PC will not patch up all the glaring holes in its model with tonnes of mysterious matter or new ad hoc physics, what you see is, essentially, what you get.

I think that you have got confused between observation and theory.
Peratt's plasma model of galaxy formation is a theory.
A huge mass (super-massive black hole) at the centre of the galaxy is an observation.

Do you agree with these statements:

• If General Relativity were to be disproved then that would falsify the Big Bang theory.
• If Peratt's plasma model of galaxy formation were to be disproved then that would falsify the plasma cosmology theory.

Or is Peratt's plasma model an "optional" part of plasma cosmology?

 

[Wangler]

Do you agree with these statements:

• If General Relativity were to be disproved then that would falsify the Big Bang theory.
• If Peratt's plasma model of galaxy formation were to be disproved then that would falsify the plasma cosmology theory.

Or is Peratt's plasma model an "optional" part of plasma cosmology?

If you were asking me, I would say Yes to the first, and No to the second.

But, the statements are not exactly equivalent.

Your first statement is asking about a fundamental aspect of the Big Bang theory, while Peratt's galaxy formation model is just a predictive aspect of the plasma cosmology model. If I understand correctly.

I think that equivalent statements might be:

*If the cosmological redshift is shown to not only be dependent upon distance, would that falsify the Big Bang theory?

*If Peratt's galaxy rotation model is wrong, would that falsify the Plasma Cosmology theory.

I would say the answer to both of these would be "No".

Or, you could state:

*If General Relativity were disproved, would that invalidate the Big Bang Theory?

*If Maxwell's equations were disproved, would that invalidate the Plasma Cosmology Theory?

These seem to me to be equivalent statements in terms the weight GR and Maxwell have with each respective theory.

My answer to these would be "Yes".

 

[Reality Check]

If you were asking me, I would say Yes to the first, and No to the second.

But, the statements are not exactly equivalent.

Your first statement is asking about a fundamental aspect of the Big Bang theory, while Peratt's galaxy formation model is just a predictive aspect of the plasma cosmology model. If I understand correctly.

I think that equivalent statements might be:

*If the cosmological redshift is shown to not only be dependent upon distance, would that falsify the Big Bang theory?

*If Peratt's galaxy rotation model is wrong, would that falsify the Plasma Cosmology theory.

I would say the answer to both of these would be "No".

Or, you could state:

*If General Relativity were disproved, would that invalidate the Big Bang Theory?

*If Maxwell's equations were disproved, would that invalidate the Plasma Cosmology Theory?

These seem to me to be equivalent statements in terms the weight GR and Maxwell have with each respective theory.

My answer to these would be "Yes".

Can you define what the "plasma cosmology model" is (the one that Peratt's galaxy formation model is just a predictive aspect)?

 

[sol invictus]

I just realized anyway, you probably want future predictions? correct?