Plasma Cosmology - Woo or not

[robinson]

That NGC 1275 is some wild stuff. More extensive data about it

http://heritage.stsci.edu/2003/14/supplemental.html

 

[Reality Check]

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/0507/ngc1275_wiyn_big.jpg

As NASA said "How were the unusual gas filaments surrounding galaxy NGC 1275 created? No one is sure."

Actually people have been fairly sure since April 2006: On the origin and excitation of the extended nebula surrounding NGC1275 has an explanation for some of the fliaments at least.

It is amazing what a couple of minutes on Google can find!

 

[Tubbythin]

I dont know. It would be nice if some astrnomers considered these questions, but they dont seem to have ever considered alternatives. If we see certain oscillations and fluctuations in any set of data we can always ‘model’ them – fit a mathematical curve to the data by ‘least squares fit’ or some other criterion. But then to claim that this model ‘proves’ what is occurring inside the Sun, where no observation has been made (or is possible), is logically unsupportable.

Ok. So you seem to be accusing the astronomers of not considering whether these alternatives are possible without having the faintest idea about them yourself. Why would an astronomer waste time considering an alternative that falls apart at the first hurdle? If, for example, Z-pinch fusion does not give rise to hydrostatic equilibrium (as it appeared in your post about it on the other thread) why waste time with it. If this alternative solar model does not give hydrostatic equilibrium it is completely and utterly wrong. So until you or someone else can show this does give hydrostatic equilibrium and a BB spectrum and... you are in no position to criticize astronomers for ignoring the alternatives. They're ignoring the alternatives presumably because they're completely unphysical.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

As NASA said "How were the unusual gas filaments surrounding galaxy NGC 1275 created? No one is sure."

Or should they have said ... *Looks like Dark Matter to me.*

I see that RC has already provided a link to a relevant paper (there are quite a few more, if you're interested ...).

However, as this is a thread devoted to Plasma Cosmology (and whether it is woo or not), may we please have references to some papers, by 'plasma cosmologists', which account for the observations reported in the Hatch et al. 2005 paper?

And, so there is no doubt, by 'match' I mean a quantitative match ... starting with a published (plasma cosmology) model, crunching of the numbers, and a filament-by-filament account of the match of model to observations, along with an appropriate discussion of consistency.

 

[Dancing David]

[qimg]http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/0507/ngc1275_wiyn_big.jpg[/qimg]

As NASA said "How were the unusual gas filaments surrounding galaxy NGC 1275 created? No one is sure."

Do you mean APOD
http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap050725.html


" Possible origins for the filaments may involve details of the collision between the two galaxies, or alternatively, interactions between a galactic center black hole and the surrounding intracluster gas. "

You left that out, didn't you.

Two years almost three since, what has happened since then?

 

[Dancing David]

oops here is some more garvity

http://arxiv.org/abs/0804.0694

and some thing not called plasma

http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/1538-3881/122/5/2281


more gravity

http://arxiv.org/abs/0712.2979


more bouyancy

http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=17607200


ionised gas?

http://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...serid=10&md5=def6e6d57d07083fd84be925fef3392d

 

[BeAChooser]

Actually people have been fairly sure since April 2006: On the origin and excitation of the extended nebula surrounding NGC1275 has an explanation for some of the fliaments at least.

From your link: "We use line-of-sight velocity information on the filamentary emission-line nebula of NGC1275 to infer a dynamical model of the nebula's flow through the surrounding intracluster gas. We detect outflowing gas and flow patterns that match simulations of buoyantly rising bubbles from which we deduce that some of the nebula filaments have been drawn out of NGC1275."

So yet again, we encounter astrophysicists that seem unable to use the word "plasma" and insist on applying phenomena more suitable to neutral atmosphere and water to the filamentary material. Now if you access the full article (http://uk.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0512331 ) you will find they say these "bubbles" are filled with plasma but that's about the only place plasma is mentioned and they never look at the role electromagnetic effects might have on that plasma. To them it's just a "bubble" rising in a neutral fluid.

And here's a 2004 article (http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0411446 ) by the exact same authors on NGC1275 where the word "plasma" isn't mentioned even once. In fact, they don't even mention that the "gas" is "ionized" in that one.

 

[robinson]

Hey! We have a whole topic about that! Don't start disrupting this topic with plasma discussions.


Oh wait ...























never mind.

 

[Wangler]

Nah, this is obfuscation, or misunderstanding, or ...

CDM is certainly an important component of ΛCDM models (duh!), and at the cosmological level there's an extraordinary consistency (which I'll address when I get round to the 'cosmology' part of my thread on the observational evidence for CDM).

HOWEVER, you need CDM for objects as small as dwarf galaxies, and as close to home as our own galaxy. And historically the observations of CDM had little to do, directly, with any cosmological models, if only because the observational constraints on the average mass-energy density of the universe were too broad.

I'm a little surprised at seeing you write this Wrangler ... I thought you understood the historical and observational record - re CDM - better than this.

I understand less than I would like, and certainly less than I should. I have certainly learned alot about the subject reading your posts in the CDM.

My point was that I still feel that COLD dark matter is a bit of a crutch.

This point of view may certainly turn out to be false, held by me in my ignorance of the subject matter.

I guess that the overall point of my post is that if PC exists such that

...new theories are free to be added to the collection at any time....

and that is presented as a drawback to plasma cosmology, then we must also view that as a drawback to the concordance cosmology as it exists today.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

From your link: "We use line-of-sight velocity information on the filamentary emission-line nebula of NGC1275 to infer a dynamical model of the nebula's flow through the surrounding intracluster gas. We detect outflowing gas and flow patterns that match simulations of buoyantly rising bubbles from which we deduce that some of the nebula filaments have been drawn out of NGC1275."

So yet again, we encounter astrophysicists that seem unable to use the word "plasma" and insist on applying phenomena more suitable to neutral atmosphere and water to the filamentary material. Now if you access the full article (http://uk.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0512331 ) you will find they say these "bubbles" are filled with plasma but that's about the only place plasma is mentioned and they never look at the role electromagnetic effects might have on that plasma. To them it's just a "bubble" rising in a neutral fluid.

And here's a 2004 article (http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0411446 ) by the exact same authors on NGC1275 where the word "plasma" isn't mentioned even once. In fact, they don't even mention that the "gas" is "ionized" in that one.

And this is relevant to whether Plasma Cosmology is woo or not because ....?

Oh wait! I forgot!

Plasma cosmology is NOT woo because an astronomer (or twenty) wrote a paper (or twenty) in which they described something as 'gas' when clearly it is almost certainly a plasma; THEREFORE plasma cosmology IS NOT WOO!!!

Now back to your regular scheduled program ...

May we please have references to some papers, by 'plasma cosmologists', which account for the NGC 1275 observations reported in the Hatch et al. 2005 paper?

(I wrote it in bold because it seems you missed it the first time round).

 

[Wangler]

I understand less than I would like, and certainly less than I should. I have certainly learned alot about the subject reading your posts in the CDM.

My point was that I still feel that COLD dark matter is a bit of a crutch.

This point of view may certainly turn out to be false, held by me in my ignorance of the subject matter.

I guess that the overall point of my post is that if PC exists such that



and that is presented as a drawback to plasma cosmology, then we must also view that as a drawback to the concordance cosmology as it exists today.

I guess my point would hold for all of science as well.

If we are "free to add new theories..." then perhaps we will finally come up with a GUT, or something.

Or we can just disavow new theories, and go back to epicycles and superluminiferous ether.

 

[Belz...]

Of course this may be off topic, concerning plasma cosmology, which is still a nebulous topic.

Nebulous.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

I understand less than I would like, and certainly less than I should. I have certainly learned alot about the subject reading your posts in the CDM.

My point was that I still feel that COLD dark matter is a bit of a crutch.

This point of view may certainly turn out to be false, held by me in my ignorance of the subject matter.

I guess that the overall point of my post is that if PC exists such that



and that is presented as a drawback to plasma cosmology, then we must also view that as a drawback to the concordance cosmology as it exists today.

Thanks for this.

What I was really getting at is that CDM does not, necessarily, have anything to do with cosmology. Further, historically, it was not 'invented' to address any cosmological issue, observation, etc.

So, both logically and historically, CDM is not related to the contemporary cosmological models in the way your post stated (or inferred), nor in the way RC meant with respect to PC.

There is, of course, an interesting relationship (or parallel, if you like): modern cosmology accepts that 'the big picture' should be consistent with smaller scale stuff, and a great many consistencies are explored and tested*. On the other hand, PC's pieces are truly independent - apparently none is required to be consistent, at any level, with any other, and inconsistencies are rarely even mentioned, let alone used as spurs for further research.

* one well-known inconsistency is the expected number of CDM-dominated dwarf galaxy satellites of normal galaxies (such as the MW) - simulations show there should be ~10 times as many as are actually observed. That's a great spur for research - are there, in fact, many more satellite dwarfs? are the simulations accurate enough at this level? what physical mechanisms have been inadequately modeled? omitted? and so on ...

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Ok. So you seem to be accusing the astronomers of not considering whether these alternatives are possible without having the faintest idea about them yourself. Why would an astronomer waste time considering an alternative that falls apart at the first hurdle? If, for example, Z-pinch fusion does not give rise to hydrostatic equilibrium (as it appeared in your post about it on the other thread) why waste time with it. If this alternative solar model does not give hydrostatic equilibrium it is completely and utterly wrong. So until you or someone else can show this does give hydrostatic equilibrium and a BB spectrum and... you are in no position to criticize astronomers for ignoring the alternatives. They're ignoring the alternatives presumably because they're completely unphysical.

Surprising as it may seem, I think you have misunderstood a pretty fundamental aspect of Plasma Cosmology (PC), Tubbythin.

To continue with your hypothetical example, in the alternative science paradigm underlying PC, there is no requirement for a Z-pinch fusion system to give rise to hydrostatic equilibrium, nor an approximately blackbody spectrum, nor ...

You see, internal consistency is not very important in PC, nor is consistency with relevant observations (it took me a while to accept that this is, in fact, the way PC works).

At a trivial level you can see this in how Zeuzzz responds to direct questions - his replies are often many quotes and links, few (if any) of which have direct relevance (and, all too often, little indirect relevance either). This inconsistency doesn't seem to bother him in the least.

At a slightly higher level, on a topic I hope to explore in more detail shortly, notice how effortlessly Zeuzzz describes the 'electric star' idea in PC - electric currents and resistive heating ('external electrical activity') may be important proximate causes of emission in certain interacting binary systems, THEREFORE electric currents and resistive heating may be important proximate causes of emission for all stars, whether they are interacting binary systems or not! Zeuzzz is perfectly happy to cite papers on the (Sun's) heliospheric current sheet as being on par with the electric currents and resistive heating models of certain interacting binaries. Perhaps he is so ignorant of the relevant physics that he truly doesn't know how inconsistent this is, but if you read enough of what he's written I think the more likely explanation is that these sorts of inconsistencies simply don't trouble him in the least.

Up one more level; Peratt's supercomputer models of 'spiral galaxy formation'.

As an interesting intellectual exercise, I'm sure it was (and still is) quite fun. However, it's pretty clear Peratt didn't try very hard to test his model for consistency with real spiral galaxies (beyond a 'rotation curve' and some pretty pictures), nor did he seem to care very much (I doubt there were many, if any, astronomers among those who reviewed his papers before recommending publication, for example). You see, inconsistency doesn't count for much in his mind (or so it would seem).

Lerner comes closest to seeming to care, based on his published papers; for example, he acknowledges that the CMB angular power spectrum is an important test of his CMB model, and that he hasn't developed it to the point where such a test is possible.

Finally, there's my long time fave example of how unimportant internal consistency is to PC proponents, 'intrinsic redshift'. Halton Arp is clearly a hero to most PC proponents, and his 'intrinsic redshift' work often figures prominently in their marketing puff pieces*. In those same puff pieces 'dark matter', 'dark energy', 'inflation', 'black holes' (and more) are scorned, called 'gnomes', and generally pooh-poohed because no lab has ever produced any such. The fact that no lab have ever produced any 'intrinsic redshift' either is not only not mentioned, but when it is, no PC proponent expresses any discomfort!

The jewel in this inconsistency crown is that no PC proponent (that I know of) has ever re-done any calculations to incorporate Arpian 'intrinsic redshift'. If such calculations were to be re-done, for all we know, Lerner's tired light, his CMB models, Peratt's spiral galaxy formation and quasar/radio lobes models, and so on, would all turn ridiculous. Weird. You'd have thought at least one person would have been curious enough to go find out, wouldn't you?

* Zeuzzz too has a long history of citing these papers as core PC documents.

 

[Tubbythin]

If you look at the nuclear fusion page in wiki it says "Research into controlled fusion, with the aim of producing fusion power for the production of electricity, has been conducted for over 50 years. It has been accompanied by extreme scientific and technological difficulties, but resulted in steady progress.", so it seems that there are issues with the hydrogen fusion process, even if they are marginal problems. I just think that other types of energy release should be considered as well as the original assumption that it has to be H-fusion.

Zeuzzz, the issues are with the magnetic confinement. I thought you would know this.

 

[Zeuzzz]

To continue with your hypothetical example, in the alternative science paradigm underlying PC, there is no requirement for a Z-pinch fusion system to give rise to hydrostatic equilibrium, nor an approximately blackbody spectrum, nor ...

You see, internal consistency is not very important in PC, nor is consistency with relevant observations (it took me a while to accept that this is, in fact, the way PC works).

Wheres the plasma cosmology paper saying anything about a "Z-pinch fusion system" ??? Your bringing up Scotts more speculative stuff again, in a thread about plasma cosmology. Thats why I keep saying, stick to the peer reviewed stuff only, or its not likely accepted PC material. Not everything mentioned in this thread has been PC, its wandered far and wide in terms of its contents, people always end up discussing their personal opinion on other similar issues too, thats only to be expected really. Just make sure that you only consider the peer reviewed material plasma cosmology, or it can get very confusing drawing a distiction between PC, whats someones personal opinion, a completely different theory, or something else all together.

Zeuzzz is perfectly happy to cite papers on the (Sun's) heliospheric current sheet as being on par with the electric currents and resistive heating models of certain interacting binaries.

I have not linked to the heliospheric current sheet, apart from the one quote in this post, I have always linked to the heliospheric current circuit, I only quoted the heliospheric current sheet in that post as it was highly relevant to Alfvens model, and is the principle the heliospheric current circuit is based on.

Maybe a picture would grab your, an others, attention more, since you so far have not commented on the links I provided before in various journals on this; (in the above link)

http://www.plasma-universe.com/index.php/Heliospheric_current_circuit

Heliospheric current circuit with the Sun as a unipolar inductor.

Up one more level; Peratt's supercomputer models of 'spiral galaxy formation'.

As an interesting intellectual exercise, I'm sure it was (and still is) quite fun. However, it's pretty clear Peratt didn't try very hard to test his model for consistency with real spiral galaxies (beyond a 'rotation curve' and some pretty pictures)

His model explains the origin and source of energy of double radio galaxies, the total magnitude of the radio flux observed, the measured flux density as a function of frequency, the observed isophotal morphologies, the spatially varying power law within a source, the polarization properties of the incoherent synchrotron radiation measured, and the lifetime and evolution of a source. See sections a, b, c, d, e, f and g in his publication "Evolution of the Plasma Universe: I. Double Radio Galaxies, Quasars, and Extragalactic Jets, which deals with each one respectively. And other sections of this addresses the formation of elliptical quasars, magnetically confined sheet electron beams we see in all galaxies, the emporal and spatial characteristics of the induction acceleration field, polarization and superluminosity, The induction accelerated Sheet Beam, formation of dust lanes due to the elliptical magnetic separatrix, and many other aspects. http://plasmascience.net/tpu/downloadsCosmo/Peratt86TPS-I.pdf (IEEE Transactions on Plasma Sci. Vol. PS-14)

Another publication, http://plasmascience.net/tpu/downloadsCosmo/Peratt86TPS-II.pdf (IEEE Transactions on Plasma Sci. Vol. PS-14) looks at;

The gross radio properties of galaxies are reviewed in
Section II. Section III describes a transistion through the
following sequence of cosmic objects: double radio galaxy
to radioquasar; radioquasar to radioquiet quasi-stellar
objects (QSO's) [9]; radioquiet QSO's to peculiar and
Seyfert spiral galaxies; and peculiar and Seyfert galaxies
to normal and barred galaxies. The various classifications
of elliptical and spiral galaxies are discussed in Sections
IV and V, respectively. The importance of electromagnetic
effects in describing both the bulk- and fine-detail
structure in the velocity curves of spiral galaxies is also
reported in Section V. Multiple interacting galaxies are
studied in Section VI. The chemical composition and the
distribution of neutral hydrogen in galaxies is discussed
in Section VII. Section VIII covers the Alfven-Carlqvist
model for star formation in pinched plasma filaments
while Section IX reports the extension of three-dimensional
electromagnetic particle simulation techniques to
include gravitational forces with the formation of stars.

In Electric space: Evolution of the plasma universe (Astrophysics and Space Science, Volume 244) he expands on it further, comparing the H-structure of his galaxy model to what we observe in galaxies, just as predicted by the supercomputer, along with many other aspects, and in Plasma and the Universe: Large Scale Dynamics, Filamentation, and Radiation (Astrophysics and Space Science, Volume 227) he elaborated further on many other aspects also.

and heres another http://plasmascience.net/tpu/downloads/Peratt_RolePartBeams.pdf (Laser and Particle Beams, vol.6, part.3) and there are others...

So i'm really not sure why you said "it's pretty clear Peratt didn't try very hard to test his model for consistency with real spiral galaxies (beyond a 'rotation curve' and some pretty pictures)", this sort of comment just comes across as a bit naive... and bit of a hand wave to be quite frank...

nor did he seem to care very much (I doubt there were many, if any, astronomers among those who reviewed his papers before recommending publication, for example). You see, inconsistency doesn't count for much in his mind (or so it would seem).

Yeah, I suppose that the peer review process in various above reputable journals I listed just suddently broke down every single day that Pertatt submitted his work and they published it

Did you really mean this? Or am I misunderstanding what you said?

Lerner comes closest to seeming to care, based on his published papers; for example, he acknowledges that the CMB angular power spectrum is an important test of his CMB model, and that he hasn't developed it to the point where such a test is possible.

Thats true I believe. Where does he say this out of curiousity? I would like to see it in one of his publications to see what else he says in relation to this component.

Finally, there's my long time fave example of how unimportant internal consistency is to PC proponents, 'intrinsic redshift'. Halton Arp is clearly a hero to most PC proponents, and his 'intrinsic redshift' work often figures prominently in their marketing puff pieces*. In those same puff pieces 'dark matter', 'dark energy', 'inflation', 'black holes' (and more) are scorned, called 'gnomes', and generally pooh-poohed because no lab has ever produced any such. The fact that no lab have ever produced any 'intrinsic redshift' either is not only not mentioned, but when it is, no PC proponent expresses any discomfort!

I dont think that anything is called a 'gnome' in any of the peer reviewed PC publications, i'm not sure they'd get away with that sort of reference in a journal. That just left up to me, BAC, and others to point out here after reading what their work implies. If they did have the opinion you just stated, they would have to give a valid scientific reason for this (obviously), or it would not get published. And they do hold Harps work that implies that redshifts are not always accurate measurements of distance in higher regard than conventional cosmologists, as not much of plasma cosmology depends on whether his observations of connected objects with very different redshifts are proved conclusively or not. They have looked into a number of alternatives, mainly the Wolf Effect and the CREIL effect (or Raman scattering), and published a few papers on some of the other more established Tired Light type theories as possible contendors.

The jewel in this inconsistency crown is that no PC proponent (that I know of) has ever re-done any calculations to incorporate Arpian 'intrinsic redshift'.

How can you calculate an intrinsic redshift, when the phrase "intrinsic redshift" is just what is used to describe any of the many alternative theories that exist for redshifts. You cant calculate a word! but within one of the many theories that this phrase describes, you certainly can use calculations within them, infact thats entirely what these scientific theories are based on.

If such calculations were to be re-done, for all we know, Lerner's tired light, his CMB models, Peratt's spiral galaxy formation and quasar/radio lobes models, and so on, would all turn ridiculous. Weird. You'd have thought at least one person would have been curious enough to go find out, wouldn't you?

They are just not arriving at the conclusion that redshift always implies distance from the various observations that seem to contradict redshifts. And Arps work, and numerous other observations, certainly seems to imply this for quasars in particular.

Lerner points out some here;

[...]As in previous years, evidence continues to accumulate that quasar (QSO) redshifts are at least in part intrinsic, and that many QSOs are no where near as distant as the redshifts imply. Ryabinkov showed that there are periodicities in the absorption line spectra in QSOs, a pattern that would not be expected if the absorption lines were from intervening galaxies. Bell and McDiarmid showed that the angular motions in quasar jets are more easily understood if the QSOs are not at extreme distance.

There may be a plasma-based explanation of what could generate the redshifts within the atmosphere of the quasar. Sisir Roy et al have devoted such a theory and have compared it to quasar observations.

The redshift distribution of absorption-line systems in QSO spectra

Authors: A.I. Ryabinkov, A.D. Kaminker, D.A. Varshalovich

http://www.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0703277v1

An Abrupt Upper Envelope Cut-off in the Distribution of Angular Motions in Quasar Jets is Compatible in all Respects with a Simple Non-Relativistic Ejection Model

Authors: M.B. Bell, D.R McDiarmid

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0701093v1

Dynamic Multiple Scattering, Frequency Shift and Possible Effects on Quasar Astronomy

Authors: Sisir Roy, Malabika Roy, Joydip Ghosh, Menas Kafatos.

http://lanl.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0701071

* Zeuzzz too has a long history of citing these papers as core PC documents.

If (say) the founder of plasma cosmology invents a concept many years ago, and this them becomes accepted years later by astrophysicists, why cant I quote their papers that have expanded on the original PC model? Not everything I quote here *has* to be published by a plasma cosmologist, but as long as its using something accepted, or even invented, by PC, then surely, you shouldn't have a problem with that. Like the papers I quoted on unipolar inductors; they still support PC as they originate from a concept first proposed fully in space by a Plasma Cosmology proponent, in this case Alfven and Falthammer. Just compare the amount of plasma cosmologists to standard cosmologists, the ratio is quite high as i'm sure your aware, you cant expect them to have as detailed explanation for absolutely everything you request. Some aspects of their work are accpeted by some mainstrean astrophysicists, ie, Alfvens current disruption model is now beggining to gain ground over magnetic reconnection, his heliospheric current system is being investigated and talked about by other astronomers, unipolar inductor model of AGN's and galaxies, etc, etc.

 

[Dancing David]

[/lurk]

Excuuuuuse me, but Arp's staitics are so bogus it is not even funny.

[lurk]

 

[Reality Check]

...new theories are free to be added to the collection at any time....

and that is presented as a drawback to plasma cosmology, then we must also view that as a drawback to the concordance cosmology as it exists today.

My post on the definition of PC as a collection of theories perhaps did not make it clear about the nature of the collection: This collection allows the addition of any new theory that matches their criteria regardless of consistency with existing theories in the collection. Thus they allow:

• Multiple inconsistant theories on cosmological redshift.
• Multiple inconsistant theories on the cosmic microwave background.
• Multiple inconsistant theories on the structure of the universe.

It is the first time that I have seen the term "concordance cosmology" and I cannot even find a definition for it on Google. The papers that I can find just look like Big Bang theory.

Expanding the PC collection to inclde DRDs extract from this thread:

• Peratt's plasma model of galaxy formation.
• Lerner's model of element formation in galaxies.
• Tired-light explanation of cosmological redshifts.
• Intrinsic redshifts from the ejection of quasars from bright galaxies.
• Other theories which may include the Electric Universe (e.g. electrically powered stars).
• Lerner's explanation of the CMB (there's a Peratt one too, but it hasn't been introduced yet)
• Peratt's ideas on quasars/QSOs/radio galaxies/AGNs (only tangentially referenced)
• Various ideas on fractal scaling, up to ~tens of Mpc
• Something about 'force free filaments' (unclear whether this is a separate idea or an essential part of one or more of the above).
• Also the original Plasma Cosmology of Hannes Alfvén?
• etc.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Way back when, sol invictus used a rather cute means of indicating, pithily, something like 'so many words, so little content'.

I'll look at just two (or so) things in this extraordinary post by Zeuzzz, for now ...

To continue with your hypothetical example, in the alternative science paradigm underlying PC, there is no requirement for a Z-pinch fusion system to give rise to hydrostatic equilibrium, nor an approximately blackbody spectrum, nor ...

You see, internal consistency is not very important in PC, nor is consistency with relevant observations (it took me a while to accept that this is, in fact, the way PC works).

Wheres the plasma cosmology paper saying anything about a "Z-pinch fusion system" ??? Your bringing up Scotts more speculative stuff again, in a thread about plasma cosmology. Thats why I keep saying, stick to the peer reviewed stuff only, or its not likely accepted PC material. Not everything mentioned in this thread has been PC, its wandered far and wide in terms of its contents, people always end up discussing their personal opinion on other similar issues too, thats only to be expected really. Just make sure that you only consider the peer reviewed material plasma cosmology, or it can get very confusing drawing a distiction between PC, whats someones personal opinion, a completely different theory, or something else all together.

Um ... er ...

Did you see the leetle, teensy-weensy word "hypothetical" in there?

So, to clear this up, I was using a hypothetical (mustn't shout now) example that TT introduced, to myself introduce a general point ... before going on to make several specific points ...

... snip ...

Did you really mean this? Or am I misunderstanding what you said?

Whoosh!

Yep, that's the sound of the point I was making going right over your head ...

Lerner comes closest to seeming to care, based on his published papers; for example, he acknowledges that the CMB angular power spectrum is an important test of his CMB model, and that he hasn't developed it to the point where such a test is possible.

Thats true I believe. Where does he say this out of curiousity? I would like to see it in one of his publications to see what else he says in relation to this component.

You mean to say that you don't (or didn't) actually read the material you cited?!?!?

HINT: try googling on "While this model has not been developed to the point of making detailed predictions of the angular spectrum of the CBR anisotropy"

Finally, there's my long time fave example of how unimportant internal consistency is to PC proponents, 'intrinsic redshift'. Halton Arp is clearly a hero to most PC proponents, and his 'intrinsic redshift' work often figures prominently in their marketing puff pieces*. In those same puff pieces 'dark matter', 'dark energy', 'inflation', 'black holes' (and more) are scorned, called 'gnomes', and generally pooh-poohed because no lab has ever produced any such. The fact that no lab have ever produced any 'intrinsic redshift' either is not only not mentioned, but when it is, no PC proponent expresses any discomfort!

{irrelevant, off-topic diversion omitted}

And they do hold Harps work that implies that redshifts are not always accurate measurements of distance in higher regard than conventional cosmologists, as not much of plasma cosmology depends on whether his observations of connected objects with very different redshifts are proved conclusively or not.

Um ...

Do you want some time to think about this Zeuzzz? To consider - very, very carefully - whether you really, truly, deeply mean to say this?

They have looked into a number of alternatives, mainly the Wolf Effect and the CREIL effect (or Raman scattering), and published a few papers on some of the other more established Tired Light type theories as possible contendors.

Way to go Zeuzzz!

Now, a highly specific, non-spam, list of directly relevant published papers if you please ... on detailed, quantitative matches between any of these mechanisms and a representative range of Arpian 'intrinsic redshifts' (sample: certain stars, satellite galaxies, certain kinds of galaxies, quasars/QSOs); please do not give just one class of object.

But you missed a very large part of the point .... the rather extreme inconsistency of trashing CDM (say) because no CDM particles have been observed in the lab while at the same time embracing without the slightest murmur of concern an idea that was not (at the time) backed by even the faintest hint of anything in the lab (and, subsequently, interesting ideas as you mention continue to fail ... no lab mechanism).

In everyday human interaction terms, this smacks of hypocrisy of the most egregious kind; in scientific terms, it is as blatant a declaration as I can imagine possible to make that serious inconsistency is quite acceptable as a core principle in PC.

The jewel in this inconsistency crown is that no PC proponent (that I know of) has ever re-done any calculations to incorporate Arpian 'intrinsic redshift'.

How can you calculate an intrinsic redshift, when the phrase "intrinsic redshift" is just what is used to describe any of the many alternative theories that exist for redshifts. You cant calculate a word! but within one of the many theories that this phrase describes, you certainly can use calculations within them, infact thats entirely what these scientific theories are based on.

If such calculations were to be re-done, for all we know, Lerner's tired light, his CMB models, Peratt's spiral galaxy formation and quasar/radio lobes models, and so on, would all turn ridiculous. Weird. You'd have thought at least one person would have been curious enough to go find out, wouldn't you?

They are just not arriving at the conclusion that redshift always implies distance from the various observations that seem to contradict redshifts. And Arps work, and numerous other observations, certainly seems to imply this for quasars in particular.

Lerner points out some here;

[...]As in previous years, evidence continues to accumulate that quasar (QSO) redshifts are at least in part intrinsic, and that many QSOs are no where near as distant as the redshifts imply. Ryabinkov showed that there are periodicities in the absorption line spectra in QSOs, a pattern that would not be expected if the absorption lines were from intervening galaxies. Bell and McDiarmid showed that the angular motions in quasar jets are more easily understood if the QSOs are not at extreme distance.

There may be a plasma-based explanation of what could generate the redshifts within the atmosphere of the quasar. Sisir Roy et al have devoted such a theory and have compared it to quasar observations.

The redshift distribution of absorption-line systems in QSO spectra

Authors: A.I. Ryabinkov, A.D. Kaminker, D.A. Varshalovich

http://www.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0703277v1

An Abrupt Upper Envelope Cut-off in the Distribution of Angular Motions in Quasar Jets is Compatible in all Respects with a Simple Non-Relativistic Ejection Model

Authors: M.B. Bell, D.R McDiarmid

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0701093v1

Dynamic Multiple Scattering, Frequency Shift and Possible Effects on Quasar Astronomy

Authors: Sisir Roy, Malabika Roy, Joydip Ghosh, Menas Kafatos.

http://lanl.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0701071

... snip ...

Source please.

So, many thanks Zeuzzz ... although this is quite mangled, convoluted, and so on, it makes the point I stated very well.

Try this for size:

Some redshifts are 'intrinsic' ... but there's no PC theory/model/wild idea on which objects, how much (redshift), or anything else.

Nor is there an unambiguous way to derive the absolute value of any 'intrinsic' redshift, from observation alone.

Ergo, the redshift of any object may contain an 'intrinsic redshift' of indeterminate value, from zero (or something negative, if you accept the full range of 'intrinsic redshift' papers) to at least 4 ... and there is no way to tell, either from theory or observation.

Among other things, this reduces Lerner's tired light, his CMB model, and his explanation for the observed abundances of D, He, and Li (and more), to noise.

It also completely trashes Peratt's work on radio galaxies and quasars.

And, if you accept the full range of published 'intrinsic redshifts', wipes out any 'electric star' PC ideas.

Alternatively, IF there are no 'intrinsic redshifts' EXCEPT FOR (some) quasars, THEN EITHER there is no PC theory for such redshifts (and certainly nothing observed in any lab), OR a wide range of observational inconsistencies are swallowed with nary a concern (or both).

In any case, not a single publication*, by any 'plasma cosmologist' (however you choose to define such a mythical creature) has ever even hinted that these inconsistencies exist (let alone that they are troubling).

* of course, I could be wrong; if any reader knows of any such publication (standard criterion applies - in a relevant peer-reviewed journal), please provide a reference.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

[/lurk]

Excuuuuuse me, but Arp's staitics are so bogus it is not even funny.

[lurk]

Indeed.

This is yet another of the inconsistencies which PC proponents are quite happy to live with (an inconsistency between textbook statistical methods and observational analysis is small beer compared with full-scale acceptance of a mechanism not demonstrated in any lab).

The more you look into it, the more examples of inconsistencies, of different kinds, you can find.

And to repeat: it's not so much the inconsistencies themselves, it's the complete lack of acknowledgment that they even exist, much less that they are troubling, or a spur for research, or ... these point to a core aspect of an alternative view of 'science' (in common parlance, 'the very definition of woo').