Plasma Cosmology - Woo or not

[Zeuzzz]

Actually it was Peratt that made this claim.

Where?

 

[Reality Check]

Where?

It is sort of indirect:
His model of galaxy formation is a plasmoid (created from 2 galactic plasma filaments) that is rotated by electromagnetic forces. His model may include gravity though this is not explicitly stated. Galaxies contain stars. His model does not go to the level of star creation. So there are a couple of alternatives for actual galaxy rotation after stars form:

1. The rotation of the galaxies continues to be dominated by electromagnetic forces (no dark matter is needed). This requires that the orbit of the stars continues to be dominated by electromagnetic forces.
2. The rotation of the galaxies becomes dominated by gravity. The orbits of the stars in the galaxy are then mostly determined by gravity. The velocity dispersion curves then over time reduce to the usual gravity dominated prediction. But we do not observe this and need dark matter.

So what case do you support (or do you have another alternative)?

One of these days Peratt really should publish the code for his simulation so that people can repeat it.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

There is not one single concrete or quantitative prediction in that list - i.e., not one single scientific prediction.

... snip ...

Indeed.

I checked out every one of the published papers Zeuzzz cited (except for some of the 'scaling' ones, and the "Thornhill, W." one), looked at the internal consistency and consistency with observations reported in those published papers, and found no hits.

Of course, I may have misunderstood what I read, or there may be a later paper or two on the topic (though I did also check all the papers which subsequently cited the ones Zeuzzz supplied, where I could), or ... but Zeuzzz didn't even acknowledge any of the posts I wrote (in terms of their content) ...

And as the PC paper writing team has largely gone silent in this last decade, we can only infer that a lack of follow-up means no consistency with the vastly greater amount of high-quality observations in that decade ...

However, that doesn't make PC 'woo', it merely makes it a set of failed ideas.

This thread is about whether PC is woo or not.

On the 'no it isn't woo' side, the existence of a modest number of 'PC papers', published in decent, peer-reviewed journals, says it isn't.

However, on the 'yes it is' side, both Zeuzzz and BeAChooser have provided more than enough material to say that it is.

For example, both have given us material that is clearly grade-A crackpot material ... and claimed with the straightest of faces that it is pure PC.

Another example is the presentation of wildly inconsistent ideas as being mainline PC (stars are powered, variously, by giant intergalactic currents, evaporation of a mini-neutron stars in their cores, or nuclear fusion - to take just one example).

Further, both seem remarkably reticent about discussing, in detail, any of these strong inconsistencies - in the few cases where either even comments on them, it is to waffle, dance about, make excuses, and do almost anything (it seems) but actually address the questions and inconsistencies.

Then there's the 'philosophical' inconsistencies, such as insisting on an 'actualistic' approach while adopting fully 'prophetic' models; or ridiculing the very idea of something not seen in an Earthly lab even existing ('gnomes') while simultaneously singing the marvelous capabilities of 'intrinsic redshift' to solve any number of PC woes.

And there's more ... (to be continued)

What more, dear reader, could you ask for, in terms of a convincing case that 'PC is woo'?

 

[Belz...]

Oh good grief. This again?

We had an entire thread many weeks back where this claim was made repeatedly and shown, for a wide variety of reasons, to be hooey.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=107792

I'm not asking him to tell me what he sees as supporting evidence. I want to know what brought him to believe that in the first place.

Zeuzzz ??

 

[BeAChooser]

And as the PC paper writing team has largely gone silent in this last decade, we can only infer that a lack of follow-up means no consistency with the vastly greater amount of high-quality observations in that decade ...

They haven't gone silent. Some are just publishing in other venues than the mainstream journals since many of those refuse to publish anything contrary to the mainstream theory.

“Challenges to Consensus Cosmology and the Quest for a New Picture of the Universe”
2008 September 7–11, Port Angeles, Washington, USA

And some are just busy doing other things?

http://photoman.bizland.com/lpp/index.htm

What more, dear reader, could you ask for, in terms of a convincing case that 'PC is woo'?

That "woo" may be about to make Lerner quite wealthy.

 

[Reality Check]

They haven't gone silent. Some are just publishing in other venues than the mainstream journals since many of those refuse to publish anything contrary to the mainstream theory.

Are you saying that the journals that used to publish their papers have now a policy in place to refuse to publish papers on this topic?

I would be interested in any proof of this. Perhaps a submissions guideline or two?

 

[Meridian]

Yep. There are a few papers that have considered this possibility recently due to the potential of plasma interactions... some astronomers do seem to be catching on with what the PC crowd have been saying;

Are rotation curves in NGC 6946 and the Milky Way magnetically supported?

and theres a few more about....

I don't know why, but I actually (sort of) read this paper (unlike Zeuzzz, as far as I can tell), and I have a question for the physicists here. It's not my field, but this paper doesn't appear to be crackpot (it's in Astronomische Nachrichten, published by Wiley, which sounds like a respectable journal). It suggests that in some galaxies, maybe magnetic forces can explain the flat rotation curves at large distances, giving calculations for the milky way and one other. Not being crackpots, the authors suggest this applies to the ISM (interstellar medium - plasma for Zeuss) only, not to stars. In fact, they point out that in the region where the magnetic force is inwards, any stars that do form would escape, as they would be electrically almost neutral and so not subject to this force.

Anyway, my question is: this paper only seems to make sense if the rotation curves discussed concern the motion of the ISM. Is the actual data for the ISM or for stars? I'd have thought that at least in the milky way there would be observations for stars, in which case the conclusions of the paper don't seem to make sense. (They claim a significant effect only at large distances though: so the question is whether there are observations for stars at a point on the curve where there are already deviations from the motion to be expected from gravity and normal matter.)

P.S. For background: the paper refers to the `pioneering work of Peratt', but does not deny the existence of DM; it suggests that maybe at least in some galaxies the rotation curve can be explained without needing DM in the galaxy itself.

 

[Dancing David]

Who claimed that magnetic forces could considerably move stars? I have never claimed that, and I have been very careful not to, as I know how hard it is to explain using standard EM forces in gas and a small charge on the sun.

Oh, see there is that honesty again.

You amongst all the PC proponents on the board have admitted that EM forces can not provide for the 'flat rotation curve of galaxies'. You are amazing.

It easy to imply this from Peratts model, but gravity can not be simply ingored. Thus why in Peratts model he includes the mass of the plasmoid and the resulting gravity, this would be main force that acts on planetary level bodies like the sun and stars (dont make me quote the hundreds of times I have said that gravity dominates on the planetary level) I have said that the charge may be able to account for a tiny amount in gases, but compared to gravity, it would be negligable. And why I have stated a lot of times that he is dealing on scale completely different to that of individual stars.

So in other words, the rotation of stars can not be accounted for by Perrat's model.

Plus, no one has ever measured the strength of the charge on the sun or stars accurately (or at all infact!), so anything using a vlaue on the charge of stars would be hypothesis (I discussed the charge on stars and potential charge they could contain at length in the "something new under the sun" thread, and others, and no, its not likely to be any more than 10^4±2) If you thought that the claim was that stars are kept in orbit by magnetic forces, then that is wrong.

Not in orbit but the acceleartion otherwise provided for by dark matter.

The EM forces in this model would effect the interstellar plasma (yes, plasma, not gas) to a much higher degree, and that is for sure. The relationship with the stars and their surrounding dusty plasma environment is the main question that has to be answered. Simple EM calculations between bodies are misleading too, ionized plasma organizes itself into a cellular structure, and double layers structure themselves such that electrostatic forces between bodies that are each surrounded by such DL-bounded plasma cells are negligibly weak. "Homogeneous models often are found to be misleading and should be replaced by inhomogeneous models, with the inhomogeneities being produced by filamentary currents and DLs that divide space into separate cells of plasma." If they did obey a strict inverse square law (as they are often modelled as by standard astrophysicists) galactic magnetic fields would not be the size they are, they often reach from galactic centres right to the very ends of galaxies.






It is well known that the EM force is 10³⁹ times stronger than gravity, and since it is now known that the stars, ISM and all solar winds are ionized plasma (only quite recently really, most models still use neutral gas), this force can potentially play a role on the large scale. By definition, plasmas are an interactive mix of charged particles, neutrals, and fields that exhibit collective complex effects. In plasmas, charged particles are subject to long-range, collective Coulomb interactions with many distant connections. Although the electrostatic/magnetostatic force drops with distance (~1/r²), the combined effect of all charged particles does not necissarily decay because the interacting volume increases as r³, leaving room for a considerable role where plasmas exist. Magnetic field effects are often global with their connections reaching to galactic scales and beyond, which does not conform with the usual ranges implied from models of them in neutral gasses. Mainstream astronomy is full of a lot of hot gas at the moment. Few people have realized the full implications that this state of matter has on the old theories they use, especially gas dynamic theories that are used nearly everywhere.

The statement that "The EM force is 10³⁹ time stronger than gravity" can be misleading, and this is where you have to take into account varying size scales, to understand what occurs at the different levels. And the galactic magnetic field structure is not very known at all, as its very hard to determine the magnetic field in space unless it belongs to a considerably large object (pulsar, neutron star, "black hole", etc), and even then you can only determine the approximate field strenght at that object, the surrounding ISM environment is much harder, as few EM signals are sent from these regions. Infact, the magnetic field structures of galaxies is a bit of a mystery, with conflicting values often acheived depending on which method is used. (Ref: The Galactic magnetic Fields - National Astronomical Observatories (cool paper, check out the toroidal structure on page four, which is what would be expected from a unipolar inductor/faraday motor model with the central current) "3.5. Unresolved problems.
If one compares what we knew with the list for what we want to know, it is true that we know very little. We are far away to have a full picture of Galactic magnetic Fields. Here are some problems which should be solved in next years [...] "

EM forces in gas can not account for much at all. Its when you apply these forces in plasma that the many and varied effects of plasma could start to take control.






Another thing that you may have not considered is that Peratts model is fundamentally different as it is an interatcion between two plasmoids, and so the gravity from this different structure in itself may beable to account for rotation of stars without the need for dark matter. Current theories use only the central mass, which is essentailly why the whole problem of flat rotation curves arrises. I'm not sure, I would have to consider this at length, but that is a possibility...

No. Not true, mass is mass and there is not enough in either model.

Yep. There are a few papers that have considered this possibility recently due to the potential of plasma interactions... some astronomers do seem to be catching on with what the PC crowd have been saying;

Are rotation curves in NGC 6946 and the Milky Way magnetically supported?

and theres a few more about.... but its hard to find them in the midst of all the papers that pop up which all seem obsessed with calling everything in space a neutral gas, and so obviously will arrive at largely erroneous conclusions...

Its also hard to account for the abundance of electric currents that have been observed connecting bodies throughout the ism if it is all neutral gas, currents can not travel very well at all through gas, it has to be plasma;

 

[Wangler]

“Challenges to Consensus Cosmology and the Quest for a New Picture of the Universe”
2008 September 7–11, Port Angeles, Washington, USA

That is the conference that Arp, Burbidge, Narlikar and Lerner are going to be at.

It is a lengthy drive, but as it is in my state I am probably going to go, to hobnob with some in the alternative cosmology homies.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

I don't know why, but I actually (sort of) read this paper (unlike Zeuzzz, as far as I can tell), and I have a question for the physicists here. It's not my field, but this paper doesn't appear to be crackpot (it's in Astronomische Nachrichten, published by Wiley, which sounds like a respectable journal). It suggests that in some galaxies, maybe magnetic forces can explain the flat rotation curves at large distances, giving calculations for the milky way and one other. Not being crackpots, the authors suggest this applies to the ISM (interstellar medium - plasma for Zeuss) only, not to stars. In fact, they point out that in the region where the magnetic force is inwards, any stars that do form would escape, as they would be electrically almost neutral and so not subject to this force.

Anyway, my question is: this paper only seems to make sense if the rotation curves discussed concern the motion of the ISM. Is the actual data for the ISM or for stars? I'd have thought that at least in the milky way there would be observations for stars, in which case the conclusions of the paper don't seem to make sense. (They claim a significant effect only at large distances though: so the question is whether there are observations for stars at a point on the curve where there are already deviations from the motion to be expected from gravity and normal matter.)

P.S. For background: the paper refers to the `pioneering work of Peratt', but does not deny the existence of DM; it suggests that maybe at least in some galaxies the rotation curve can be explained without needing DM in the galaxy itself.

Not sure if a link to the more accessible arXiv preprint of this paper has been given already or not; in any case, here it is.

To cover some of the questions here very briefly (take a look at the JREF thread I started recently, on the observational evidence for CDM, for more detail on some of these points):

* in the outer parts of spiral galaxy disks, the rotation curves are often traced primarily with components of the ISM

* motions of other objects are used to estimate the total enclosed mass, outside or beyond the disks (e.g. planetary nebulae, satellite galaxies) - the paper mentions these, at least briefly

* that there is DM in the halos of several individual galaxies, and galaxies collectively, is a robust conclusion of analysis of a smallish number of strong lenses and an ensemble average of hundreds of thousands via weak lensing

* the paper's comment, at the end of the discussion section, about ellipticals is not consistent with the SLACS papers (I briefly reviewed two in the other thread)

* I recall reading a recent paper on the space motion of some star (or stars) in the MW, quite some distance further out than we are ... it is (or was) some sort of record for distance and precision, and was consistent with the MW rotation curve (I should try to find it, it is quite interesting).

ETA: found it! It's "Astrometry of Galactic Star Forming Region Sharpless 269 with VERA : Parallax Measurements and Constraint on Outer Rotation Curve" (whew! preprint here). Note that water masers are relatively common in the ISM of star-forming regions. It would be interesting to know how extensively the MW weak regular magnetic field is disrupted in such star-forming regions as Sharpless 269 ...

 

[Meridian]

Thanks! I wasn't trying to argue against DM, just curious about this one paper. Looking on arXiv (once you'd suggested it) lead me to this, which says that observations of Planetary Nebulae in M31 and M33 appear to confirm that flat rotation curves apply to stars too, ruling out the possible magnetic explanation in those cases.

To cover some of the questions here very briefly (take a look at the JREF thread I started recently, on the observational evidence for CDM, for more detail on some of these points):

I've been reading that too - it's very interesting and very convincing that DM does exist.

 

[Wangler]

It's not really surprising ...

Can you confirm that the second edition is dated 1981?

Yes, the version is dated 1981.

The reference usually regarded as standard (at least the starting point) for the astrophysics of galaxies (at grad level) is Binney & Tremaine, but even that is dated 1987.

I'm not sure what you mean by the date reference here. Are you are meaning to state in very general terms that the older the text, the less chance of mentions of EM in galactic astronomy texts?

I have an ex-library copy of Volume V of the great Stars and Stellar Systems, Galactic Structure, dated 1965. For such dated material, the Stars and Stellar Systems series has really got some good information. Highly recommended, and you can get individual volumes used on Alibris or similar sites for no more than $5-$10.

Anyhow, this volume has an entire section titled: "Dynamics of Gas and Magnetic Fields; Spiral Structure." Great stuff.

 

[Zeuzzz]

There is not one single concrete or quantitative prediction in that list - i.e., not one single scientific prediction. Nevertheless, let's take them one at a time <gag>.



Then explain redshift-distance relations and all the other cosmo data quantitatively. That wouldn't be a prediction, it would be consistency with existing data - the bare minimum necessary to pay any attention to this theory. Then, after all that, you might be able to produce a real prediction.



Then let's see a quantitative analysis of the element abundances based on PC. But again, mere consistency, not a prediction.

[quote[* The universe shall show primarily a filamentary structure resulting from EM effects on large scales, which is in contrast to the results of the attractive field of gravity and the Big Bang that predictes a homogenous smooth universe. As the strength of measurements in space increases and encompasses more of the EM spectrum this structure shall become increasing apparent.

To make that a prediction you need to characterize the strength/density/clumpiness of the filaments quantitatively. Moreover your characterization of standard cosmo is wrong.



To make that a prediction, define "negligable" [sic] and "play a role" quantitatively. And another false statement and strawman - no one says that on large scales the only force is gravity. But the idea that EM forces can account for large scale phenomena like rotation curves was thoroughly debunked in a thread here recently - one that you participated in.

You have a very short memory it seems.



No one disagrees with the first part - that's why lots of people (that don't believe in PC) are doing such experiments. That's why many universities have space plasma labs. Silly strawman.

* Extremely similar phenomena exist in plasmas at all scales because of inherent scaling laws, ultimately derived from Maxwell's laws.

Then derive those laws from Maxwell, taking into account the relevant forces (like gravity), and make a prediction. So far, nothing.



Silly and random non sequitor. Where is the PC prediction?



Steady state models were ruled out 50 years ago. Explain the CMB, supernova data, large scale structure surveys, the Hubble law, and galactic spectra, quantitatively and in accord with data. That still won't be a prediction, but at least someone might take your theory seriously for more than half a second.



See above.



Quantify "important role".



Ditto.



How much of a role? What does it do?



Own-goal scoring strawman. That the universe is hierarchical in that sense follows from mainstream physics, which is what mainstream astros use to describe the universe. It is you that deny that the universe is hierarchical - you are the one that thinks gravity never takes over as the dominant force at large scales.



Unbelievably vague statement; not even wrong.



Then explain the WMAP 5 year data, quantitatively. Until then, the model is ruled out. That would still not be a prediction.



Ruled out by data. The fractal dimension of structures on large scales is not 2.

So: in that whole list, not one single prediction, and several statements that are in direct conflict with data. Although you still have failed to say anything quantitative, by finally tying your theory to several concrete crackpot ideas you've made it all the easier to debunk. Why don't we pick one idea from there and see how it does?

For example, we could take the steady state nonsense, or the claim that EM is important on large scales. Which would you prefer?

Well thank you for taking the time to actually read and comment on one of my posts, although many of them are very dubious non specific answers and indicates to me that you still have not read much PC material. Did you read the link that I provded at the top of the post? I would pick the fractal dimension equal to two if i had to choose any from that list, but some of Lerners predictions about element abundance may be better (which you would know about if you had read or commented on the link in my original post) And I did say that i was not doing PC justice with that list, they are far more general points, if you want more specific ones, I really dont have time at the mo... maybe reading the links I provdied would suffice? And seeing how the PC predictions do compared to the Big Bang ones? A Comparison of Plasma Cosmology and the Big Bang IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science, 2005

And you might want to keep this in mind;

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Plasma_cosmology&oldid=88919194#cite_note-37

Plasma cosmology is not a widely-accepted scientific theory, and even its advocates agree the explanations provided are less detailed than those of conventional cosmology. Its development has been hampered, as have that of other alternatives to big bang cosmology, by the exclusive allocation of government funding to research in conventional cosmology. Most conventional cosmologists argue that this bias is due to the large amount of detailed observational evidence that validates the simple, six parameter Lambda-CDM model of the big bang.

 

[Dancing David]

Boohoo hoo

Plasma cosmology is not a widely-accepted scientific theory, and even its advocates agree the explanations provided are less detailed than those of conventional cosmology. Its development has been hampered, as have that of other alternatives to big bang cosmology, by the exclusive allocation of government funding to research in conventional cosmology.

What a crock Zeuzzz, this is patent sour grapes and whining.

fermilabs was not built to support the Big Band Model, it was built to pursure particle physics in the hopes of new eapons.

When Guth sat down and started to generate the inflationary model, what was his budget. One pad of paper and a pencil.

Th8is is a crock, plasma is studied and it is part and parcel of physics and atsrophyics. Most consmology is not an expense item in funding, it is paper and pencil, or now white board and marker and computer.

QWhen COBE was built it could have supported perrat and lerner in their contentions about PC, it just didn't.

Scope time is precious, everyone fight for it.

This is the most specious form of argument when it comes to cosmology, it doesn't take a huge budget to do cosmology, it takes finding the theory that predicts the observations that are every where for free.

Weak, weak and weaker.

What kind of money do Perrat and Lerner get at their jobs, what the fred are you whining about?

The problem is the theory does not match predictions to observation!

How much money did Gell-Mann have when he developed quark theory?

 

[DeiRenDopa]

... snip ...

The reference usually regarded as standard (at least the starting point) for the astrophysics of galaxies (at grad level) is Binney & Tremaine, but even that is dated 1987.

I'm not sure what you mean by the date reference here. Are you are meaning to state in very general terms that the older the text, the less chance of mentions of EM in galactic astronomy texts?

It was a bit vague, wasn't it.

I was being far too terse; I meant that in very general terms the older any grad level textbook on galactic astronomy (and much more besides), the greater the chances are that it will not contain things of considerable interest to today's astrophysicists (as well as a non-zero chance it will contain stuff now known to be wrong).

Observational astronomy has changed enormously over the past half century, and even over the past decade. Several interesting and open questions, about galaxies, have been resolved, and new ones have come along.

About "EM": I know you use this as a shorthand for something like 'large-scale magnetic fields' or 'models concerned with galaxy formation, structure, evolution, etc in which plasma physics plays an important role' (well, I think that's what you mean!), but every time I read it I get a bit of a start ... after all, there's essentially no* astronomy other than "EM"!

I have an ex-library copy of Volume V of the great Stars and Stellar Systems, Galactic Structure, dated 1965. For such dated material, the Stars and Stellar Systems series has really got some good information. Highly recommended, and you can get individual volumes used on Alibris or similar sites for no more than $5-$10.

Anyhow, this volume has an entire section titled: "Dynamics of Gas and Magnetic Fields; Spiral Structure." Great stuff.

Great recommendation!

I should note that it is rare that any 'old faithful' textbook contains outright errors in the physics (not counting typos, of course) ...

* obligatory caveats, for robinson's benefit, if not others': astronomy beyond those parts of the solar system where in situ measurements (etc) have been taken; other than a tiny number of neutrinos (from SN 1987A); excluding (galactic) cosmic rays; and a few nanograms (?) of neutral He, and of interstellar dust; (the non-detection, to date, of gravitational wave radiation) ... I think that's about it (solar system part may be too short a summary).

 

[BeAChooser]

* in the outer parts of spiral galaxy disks, the rotation curves are often traced primarily with components of the ISM

Wait! You mean to say that in the outer regions of the disk where the rotation curve doesn't behave like it should if only the gravity of the matter that we can see is affecting it, the rotation curve is determined primarily with a substance (some would call it plasma) that is affected by ... uh ... electromagnetism?

 

[BeAChooser]

I meant that in very general terms the older any grad level textbook on galactic astronomy (and much more besides), the greater the chances are that it will not contain things of considerable interest to today's astrophysicists (as well as a non-zero chance it will contain stuff now known to be wrong).

But don't you find it strange that a text book from 1981-1987 doesn't even mention plasma and electromagnetic effects ... even though plasma cosmology voices were quite vocal back in that time period? And had a number of very big names on their side. It's not like scientists didn't already know that most of the observed matter was plasma ... even back then. Or that plasma is affected by electromagnetic effects. Or that thinks like Birkeland currents and plasma pinches exist. Why there were even peer reviewed scientific papers that were going unchallenged by the mainstream community that supported the Plasma Cosmology viewpoint. And yet the textbooks that are supposed to train the next generation of astronomers and astrophysicists COMPLETELY ignored these things? Odd.

 

[Zeuzzz]

All that's well and fine, but I have a question: What makes you and other proponents of this theory think, to start with, that stars are EM-powered ?

I'm not sure, i'm an agnostic when it comes to this aspect. I think that fusion is a very real possibility, but not traditional nuclear fusion, likely plasma fusion techniques, magnetic confienment fusion, Z-pinch fusion, dense plasma focus fusion, etc, etc. After all, these have all been recently achieved in various tests around the world, and depite nulcear fusion having gained more funding than all of them put together, Nuclear fusion still has never been achieved. In theory its easy, but in practise there are always problems that have cropped up. It may not even be possible. And many astronomers outside of plasma cosmology have proposed a unipolar inductor model of stars (or "electric star" model). http://www.mssl.ucl.ac.uk/www_astro/news/gtbr/rx1914.html

 

[Zeuzzz]

Boohoo hoo


What a crock Zeuzzz, this is patent sour grapes and whining.

fermilabs was not built to support the Big Band Model, it was built to pursure particle physics in the hopes of new eapons.

When Guth sat down and started to generate the inflationary model, what was his budget. One pad of paper and a pencil.

Th8is is a crock, plasma is studied and it is part and parcel of physics and atsrophyics. Most consmology is not an expense item in funding, it is paper and pencil, or now white board and marker and computer.

QWhen COBE was built it could have supported perrat and lerner in their contentions about PC, it just didn't.

Scope time is precious, everyone fight for it.

This is the most specious form of argument when it comes to cosmology, it doesn't take a huge budget to do cosmology, it takes finding the theory that predicts the observations that are every where for free.

Weak, weak and weaker.

What kind of money do Perrat and Lerner get at their jobs, what the fred are you whining about?

The problem is the theory does not match predictions to observation!

How much money did Gell-Mann have when he developed quark theory?

Anything else?

Can you point to any organization that has given plasma cosmology funding? Apart from LANL that Peratt and colleagues works with, hardly any. I would say that what they have achieved so far is quite good for the comparitive funding they get.

 

[Tubbythin]

Nuclear fusion still has never been achieved.

Quite possibly the stupidest comment I have ever read from you. And I have read plenty of stupid things you have said.