Plasma Cosmology - Woo or not

[DeiRenDopa]

... snip ...


Yes I have, but Lerner does not say what you did originally at all in that paper, to finish off that quote and the bit you missed out "While this model has not been developed to the point of making detailed predictions of the angular spectrum of the CBR anisotropy, it 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%."

So perhaps I can expect that you'll actually read the posts I wrote on this, waaaay back in this thread?

And that you might, one day, get around to addressing the content of those posts??

And you have to actually say why the angular power spectrum of the CMB is important and disproves PC, lack of explanation over one specific componet does not falsify the theory.

... snip ...

Dude,

You want to keep working on Lerner's model, until you get an angular power spectrum for his CMB (as well as a dipole, the SZE, polarisation footprints, temperature in high-z clouds, ...)?

Be my guest!

But thanks again; I hadn't quite appreciated that you, if not 'plasma cosmologists', have a radically different approach to how science is done (besides the aspects I've already pointed out). I guess it's a natural corollary to the 'inconsistencies don't matter' aspect.

Now since you brought it up, and since it's these foundational (or meta-) aspects I'm more interested in, may I ask how you approach the following?

Suppose someone develops an idea that the CMB is the work of garden gnomes (we don't need to consider the details here). Further suppose they write it up, and get it published in some peer-reviewed journal or other. This particular idea doesn't connect with anything else in astrophysics, and maybe any competent physics grad student could shoot it down in an hour (or maybe not). The idea, as presented, 'explains' only a very small subset of the full range of relevant 'CMB' observations. The author of the idea does not develop it any further, for whatever reason.

Do I understand correctly that in your view of how science works the lack of any paper 'falsifying' this idea is all that's needed to regard it as a viable alternative to ΛCDM cosmological models? You may assume, for the sake of this hypothetical, that those models are fully consistent with the full range of 'CMB' observations.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Back to "fuel sources", 'electric stars', and so on.

I'm not going to quote from old posts (mostly Zeuzzz'); if any reader wants the details of how the conversation got to this point, just ask (and I'll spend an hour or so reconstructing it).

Start with what I hope is a clear scope - stars.

Continue with clearly narrowing that scope, temporarily (i.e. I'll come back to discuss the temporary out of scope items later): exclude supernovae and systems of interacting binaries (a.k.a., or including, contact binaries, close binaries, and inspirals); also exclude GRBs and hypernovae (just in case they are not already excluded as supernovae), and also exclude black holes. Arbitrarily set the lower mass boundary for 'stars' as 0.1 sol (again, temporarily; this is mostly to avoid essentially irrelevant consideration of any planet/star distinction).

Rather than make an assumption, I'll ask Zeuzzz, BAC, robinson, and any other member who feels it is relevant: can we accept that a 'star', in this restricted sense, is an object which is in hydrostatic equilibrium (suitably defined to include pulsating stars), over periods of at least tens of years? If not, why not? If you don't know what 'hydrostatic equilibrium' means, just ask.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

... snip ...

Now what, pray tell, does this have to do with the question I asked?!?

Let's review the origin, shall we?

Zeuzzz: "Observations of stars that seemingly disprove current nuclear theories seem interesting. And these events are better explained with the electric star interpretaion of the hertzsprung russell diagram [...] And there are many more variable stars like this that are extremely hard to explain with traditional nuclear models, and seem to be exactly what you would expect from Alfvens star model and his supernova model."

DeiRenDopa: "What is this "the electric star interpretaion" [sic]? Where has it been published?

And what are these models? Where have they been published?"

So let's be really charitable this time, and assume Zeuzzz simply pressed the wrong button ... because neither of those references has anything whatsoever to do with "Alfvens star model and his supernova model", nor anything to do with stars being powered by electric currents.

So perhaps my questions were too imprecise ... how about this:

In which publications (papers) can one read "the electric star interpretaion of the hertzsprung russell diagram"? I googled, but found only debunking (yes, on the BAUT forum!) and crackpot websites.

And this: In which publications (papers) can one read exactly how "Alfvens star model and his supernova model" explains the behaviour of all variable stars? I googled, but found only crackpot websites (and lots of material that has nothing to do with any "Alfven star model" or "Alfven supernova model").

... snip ...

Bump.

You may have overlooked this Zeuzzz, or thought you'd covered it somehow otherwise.

Here are the questions again, with some commentary:

Q: In which publications (papers) can one read "the electric star interpretaion of the hertzsprung russell diagram"?

Comment: the paper(s) should explicitly discuss the HR diagram, and quantitatively address the observed colours, luminosities, and masses, by a direct derivation of these observables from the 'electric star' model (or theory, or ...).

If there are no such papers, to your knowledge, please say so.

Q: In which publications (papers) can one read exactly how "Alfvens star model and his supernova model" explains the behaviour of all variable stars?

Comment: the paper(s) should explicitly discuss every class of variable listed in the AAVSO webpage(s) you linked to in your original post, derive the phenomenology of each class directly from "Alfvens star model and his supernova model", and show quantitative consistency.

If there are no such papers, to your knowledge, please say so.

 

[The Man]

Do there? How could science progress at all if people could only work on already existing theories?

And all the well known energy sources on earth provide the "model" so to speak, your just applying it in a different place than usually considered.






I find that explanation highly unlikely since the surface of the sun is not really dense enough for Z-pinch fusion. If the current density was higher than currently thought, then this would be a contendor, but it would be much more likely in the centre of the sun where the pressure and potential current can become high enough. But of course, we know that this one idea would not account for hardly any significant fraction, the sun would just implode inwards if all its energy was being created on the surface And its also very hard to imagine how convection functions in a completely surface powered star

See, now that wasn’t so hard was it? You have now basically eliminated one of the proposed alternatives yourself or at least relegated it to an insignificant contributor. You’re on a roll so keep going. Take the “so to speak” models then apply them to that different place, the sun, and see if they can be a significantly contributing factor. You may find like the surface Z-pinch fusion model that there are inherent factors that would readily discount those models as well as observations that should readily support those models which we do not observe. Go luck, you have demonstrated that you do have the ability for critical thinking now you just have to apply it.

 

[Zeuzzz]

Rather than make an assumption, I'll ask Zeuzzz, BAC, robinson, and any other member who feels it is relevant: can we accept that a 'star', in this restricted sense, is an object which is in hydrostatic equilibrium (suitably defined to include pulsating stars), over periods of at least tens of years? If not, why not? If you don't know what 'hydrostatic equilibrium' means, just ask.

Why does ten years come into it? I'm not sure why you said that

assuming the energy and pressure is being generated in the core only, then yes, hydrostatic equilibrium would be unavoidable.

 

[Zeuzzz]

See, now that wasn’t so hard was it? You have now basically eliminated one of the proposed alternatives yourself or at least relegated it to an insignificant contributor. You’re on a roll so keep going. Take the “so to speak” models then apply them to that different place, the sun, and see if they can be a significantly contributing factor. You may find like the surface Z-pinch fusion model that there are inherent factors that would readily discount those models as well as observations that should readily support those models which we do not observe. Go luck, you have demonstrated that you do have the ability for critical thinking now you just have to apply it.

I never endorsed a theory that said Z-pich fusion was the primary contributor and that stars are powered only from their surface. The Idea that any star could be powered entirely from their surface can be pretty much ruled out, that would just not work, the sun couldn't have the structure it does with the amount of mass it contains. I see no reason to discount Z-pinch fusion inside the sun however.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

... 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.

Just search the text, it will pop up, and I said in that post its from Lerner.

Here, perhaps?

And commenting on them would be nice too, considering they are relevant to the subject at hand, and your responce widely was not...

... snip ...

Sure, why not?

The general context is, lest any reader has forgotten, whether Plasma Cosmology is woo or not.

The specific context is the extreme tolerance of inconsistencies (of many different kinds) within the woolly collection of disparate ideas Zeuzzz has assured us comprise the supposedly coherent set of theories called Plasma Cosmology.

The specific example under discussion is how completely relaxed plasma cosmologists seem to be about the many kinds of inconsistency 'intrinsic redshifts', related to any class of object, generate.

Let's take just two specific inconsistencies, one with Lerner's own CMB idea, and one with Peratt's re quasars.

Recall that Lerner's CMB idea is that it is an isotropized and thermalized (I think those are the two words he used) reprocessing of starlight that originates as H to He conversion. Recall too that a key observational 'fact' he uses to support his idea is a certain correlation between IR and radio intrinsic luminosities, specifically of radio-loud quasars. Now that correlation as support for his idea turns to garbage if the quasars are no longer at distances implied by their redshifts!

Strangely, Lerner omits to include this potentially devastating corollary of accepting even one of the three papers he mentions.

Re Peratt and quasars.

Recall that central to Peratt's model is the estimated (radio) luminosity of the quasars. Now those luminosities assume the quasars are at distances implied by their redshifts; a corollary is that if they are not, then his account of quasar luminosities, with his model, turns to garbage.

In this case, let's give Peratt credit: it seems that in none of his papers does he countenance any 'intrinsic redshift' (except the reference to Tifft I hinted earlier).

(to be continued)

 

[Wangler]

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.

Sorry for the unusual terminology. My definition of the concordance cosmology is the current popular front runner, Lambda-CDM.

My point of comparison is that it has a few problems as well, and while it might not be as shakey as Plasma Cosmology, we still have a long way to go before it is as concrete as I'm sure all of us would like.

 

[robinson]

Do any theories try to explain "why", or is it all just "how and when"?

 

[robinson]

Back on topic, looking at "Plasma Cosmology" and some other "debunked" theories, the worst offense, in the eyes of the BigBangers, seems to be "steady state", or any sort of theory that doesn't include a beginning to the Universe.

Which is pretty strange. Considering energy is neither created nor destroyed, that whole laws of physics thing, it seems the Universe has to be eternal. Otherwise some basic law of physics is being violated somehow.

How can that happen?

 

[Wangler]

Dude,

You want to keep working on Lerner's model, until you get an angular power spectrum for his CMB (as well as a dipole, the SZE, polarisation footprints, temperature in high-z clouds, ...)?

Be my guest!

You know, if PC folks could nail down some of these specifics, they might be on to something.

For example, SZE observations have been unexpected, and contradictory. There is lots of speculation going on to try to get a handle on the unexpected and contradictory observations.

If the PC folks could come to the rescue, they would be hailed as minor heroes. Anyone would!

Anybody have any good ideas?

 

[Zeuzzz]

Bump.

You may have overlooked this Zeuzzz, or thought you'd covered it somehow otherwise.

Here are the questions again, with some commentary:

Q: In which publications (papers) can one read "the electric star interpretaion of the hertzsprung russell diagram"?

Comment: the paper(s) should explicitly discuss the HR diagram, and quantitatively address the observed colours, luminosities, and masses, by a direct derivation of these observables from the 'electric star' model (or theory, or ...).

If there are no such papers, to your knowledge, please say so.

Q: In which publications (papers) can one read exactly how "Alfvens star model and his supernova model" explains the behaviour of all variable stars?

Comment: the paper(s) should explicitly discuss every class of variable listed in the AAVSO webpage(s) you linked to in your original post, derive the phenomenology of each class directly from "Alfvens star model and his supernova model", and show quantitative consistency.

If there are no such papers, to your knowledge, please say so.

I already responded to this.

It implies that stars can have currents that travel towards them. And when this incoming current component increases substantially this is what causes the gain in energy and supernova explosions as the current density dramatically increases. Alfven proposed that a supernova is a star that recieves so many incoming particles in the electric circuit that the double layer on its surface becomes large enough to make the internal constituents of the star highly unstable due to the charge build up, essentially an exploding Double layer, and as Ziggurat and Sol stated elsewhere "Charges that high would make the star quite literally explode". Because the external circuit primarily drives the formation of the double layer, the supernova doesn't have to release the energy from an internal, or even a local source. Just like the weird explosion from no where that was detected, nothing there, but the electrical energy converged on this area and exploded; http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/071218-mysterious-explosion.html
Shock waves and heat are by-products of a phenomenon that is primarily electrical, and the recent "non-resonant instability" proposal by Bell and others seem to imply this electrical activity and extreme particle acceleration, from the exploding double layer in Alfvens model, is a very plausable mechanism for the acceleration of particles and generation of gamma rays we observe.

They have been published in:

*Double Layers in Astrophysics, Proceedings of a Workshop held in Huntsville
*Astrophysics and Space Science, vol. 54, no. 2
*Cosmic Plasma (much cited academic book written by aflven
*Astronomy and Astrophysics, v.376, p.288-291 (2001)
And more.....

[..]


But the various papers I posted above most certainly do propose electrical power as a new form of stellar energy other than nuclear or accretion, starting with the work of Wu et al, and all the other publications that have also expanded on the stars using electrical power idea, delivered from the external circuits that Alfven first proposed over fourty years ago now... Read the very first citation from the paper that proposes this electrcal power releasing mechanism. I'll save you the time its this, by Alfven, all the way back in 1963, and shows how ahead of his time he was since this electrical idea has only become widely accepted very recently; http://www.amazon.com/Cosmical-electrodynamics-Fundamental-principles-International/dp/B0007IT7TA

"The resistive dissipation in the white dwarfs is sufficient to power luminosities significantly above solar values; most power is dissipated at the hot spots on the surface of the magnetic white dwarfs, which are footpoints of the field lines connecting the two stars. Electrical power is therefore an alternative luminosity source, following on from nuclear fusion and accretion." (Kinwah Wu, 2001) http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0111/0111358v1.pdf

I could list the other papers based on this electrical unipolar inductor energy releasing mechansim from the ones I have already, but I'm getting very tired of doing this.

So perhaps my questions were too imprecise ... how about this:

In which publications (papers) can one read "the electric star interpretaion of the hertzsprung russell diagram"? I googled, but found only debunking (yes, on the BAUT forum!) and crackpot websites.

In here; http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1981ASSL...82.....A

also gets a mention in this publication; http://www.springerlink.com/content/t8652n11506064u7/

And this one; The plasma Z-pinch morphology of supernova 1987A and the implications for supernova remnants

And also this one; http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ITPS...35..832T

And theres a few more I remember reading about in the Astronomical Journal, but I cant remember the names... I'll have another look if I can remember who published them...


http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ITPS...35..832T

...snip... In the electric star model, the important variable is the current density at the star's photosphere [represented by the x-axis in Fig. 9(a) and ].

To conform with the electrical engineering convention, the horizontal axis of the H–R diagram is reversed [Fig. 9]. Mathematically, we have the situation where the variable plotted on the horizontal axis (current density) is also the major factor in the quantity plotted on the vertical axis (luminosity).
As the current density increases, the discharge becomes hotter, changes color (from red, toward blue), and gets brighter.

In both models, the main sequence is a static scatter plot. In the standard model, stars evolve off the main sequence. However, when the enviroment of electric stars are disturbed, they will change position significantly and suddenly anywhere on the main sequence. Observationally, there are many examples of sudden changes in stellar spectral type and luminosity, that contradict the standard model and support the electrical model [......]

And I listed just a couple of direct observations that disprove the curent nuclear interpretation of the spectra, and support the electrical interpretation. There are many, many more examples like this of these 'variable stars' that are better explained with the electrical interpretation, rather than the nuclear one based on million year cycles.

And this: In which publications (papers) can one read exactly how "Alfvens star model and his supernova model" explains the behaviour of all variable stars? I googled, but found only crackpot websites (and lots of material that has nothing to do with any "Alfven star model" or "Alfven supernova model").

Ah yes, silly me.

I'd forgotten that in the alternative science which PC relies upon the logic of false dichotomy is revered.

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1987dla..conf..183S
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?1978Ap&SS..54..279A
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1981ASSL...82.....A
http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?1978Ap&SS..55..487A
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/n...T&data_type=HTML&format=&high=45cce9d73305181

Also elaborated on in this;
Trends in apparent time intervals between multiple supernovae occurrences



And i'm really sorry DRD, I must have missed your responce to my original point where I explained what the electrical interpretation of the HR diagram is, primarily due to the current density on the stars surface, and what advantages it has over the existing nuclear theory in explaing direct observations that contradict the current one. If you have a valid scienfitic reason to dismiss this, then please, post it, instead of writing the sort of posts above.

I also pointed out that the very person who invented the nuclear model himself, eddington, said "If there is no other way out we may have to suppose that bright line spectra in the stars are produced by electric discharges similar to those producing bright line spectra in a vacuum tube.."

 

[Wangler]

Which is pretty strange. Considering energy is neither created nor destroyed, that whole laws of physics thing, it seems the Universe has to be eternal. Otherwise some basic law of physics is being violated somehow.

How can that happen?

You know, robinson, there are certain aspects of general relativity that aren't exactly compatible with the concept of conservation of energy, especially at large scales.

Peebles in his book "Principles of Physical Cosmology" brings this point up, and he is rather cavalier about the whole subject.

So, I think that objections to steady state cosmologies are for things other than conservation of energy, as general relativity may not allow energy conservation on cosmological scales anyhow.

 

[robinson]

I don't really care what GR says, based on reality, you don't get something for nothing, and neither matter nor energy can be destroyed, as far as all reality based evidence shows.

If somebody is suggesting you can create matter (or energy) from nothing, they are going to have to provide some evidence for that claim. Same for claiming that energy (or matter, they are the same thing), can vanish, become nothing.

At the most basic levels of reality, you have to take a stand somewhere. If matter/energy can come from nothing (woo woo!), then you just stepped into the Twilight Zone. Same for the other way round.

And now I am off topic. Sorry. I blame the pain killers. They are messing with my good nature.

 

[Dancing David]

[/lurk]
Um, the burden is on those who propose theoreis to find the evidence that backs their theory.

Others are not responsible for ruling out alternate theories. The people who propose them have the burden to find the evidence to support them.
[lurk]

 

[Dancing David]

Back on topic, looking at "Plasma Cosmology" and some other "debunked" theories, the worst offense, in the eyes of the BigBangers, seems to be "steady state", or any sort of theory that doesn't include a beginning to the Universe.

Which is pretty strange. Considering energy is neither created nor destroyed, that whole laws of physics thing, it seems the Universe has to be eternal. Otherwise some basic law of physics is being violated somehow.

How can that happen?

Well that is a big question. (I won't fight with you , I hope. So I am not going to lurk your comment.)

The easiest explantion is that the energy does come from 'somewhere', it is just that 'somewhere' is beyond our current ability to ever get data about.

The big bang is a name, it is not the model, the model is a description of one possibility.

And so far it is a better approximation than the others, which can change.

But if is is the intersection of branes, inflationary recursion or the Great Crumb Snatchee dropping a bit of Lunch to the Floor of Existance, well we cant really know.

The vacum energy exists which is a clue, but maybe not.

The Vacum Energy Dust Bunnies are mysterious...

(Meddle not in the ways of wizards for they are soggy and hard to light.)

 

[robinson]

[/lurk]
Um, the burden is on those who propose theoreis[sic] to find the evidence that backs their theory.

That brings up an interesting point.

Devil's Advocate: "While certain plasma theories are lacking observational evidence, partly due to the difficulty of observing certain things, partly due to the possibility they are just plain wrong, at least the engineers and physicist proposing plasma theory have both the laws of physics behind them as well as repeatable experiments to build on.

The crazy Cosmologist who invented Dark matter/Dark Energy/shock wave heating/gravitational clumping/accretion discs and all the other mysterious "gnomes" to shore up their theories, they don't have the same level of evidence to support them."



But seriously, how can anyone accept the "dark energy" crap that somebody made up to explain a huge problem with a theory?

I noticed in the "Extraordinary Claims" topic that nobody ever tried to argue that little jewel of woo woo thinking. Dark matter, sure, but nobody was dumb enough to take on Dark Energy.

But back to Plasma bashing.

The biggest problems I see with PC, is the associating with the Electric Sun crowd, as well as trying to deny the redshift theory.

I'm sure, as is often the case, reality is somewhere in the middle of the extremes. I know that somewhere out there, a very rational well respected Cosmologist has figured out the huge error that observational physics has made in the last thirty years. As well as realizing what Einstein objected to, when the Mathematics tools took over, and abandoned experiments, forging ahead with math instead of the old fashioned way of doing science. Making theory match reality, not the other way around.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Bump.

You may have overlooked this Zeuzzz, or thought you'd covered it somehow otherwise.

Here are the questions again, with some commentary:

Q: In which publications (papers) can one read "the electric star interpretaion of the hertzsprung russell diagram"?

Comment: the paper(s) should explicitly discuss the HR diagram, and quantitatively address the observed colours, luminosities, and masses, by a direct derivation of these observables from the 'electric star' model (or theory, or ...).

If there are no such papers, to your knowledge, please say so.

Q: In which publications (papers) can one read exactly how "Alfvens star model and his supernova model" explains the behaviour of all variable stars?

Comment: the paper(s) should explicitly discuss every class of variable listed in the AAVSO webpage(s) you linked to in your original post, derive the phenomenology of each class directly from "Alfvens star model and his supernova model", and show quantitative consistency.

If there are no such papers, to your knowledge, please say so.

I already responded to this.

Oh, I see.

... or maybe not.

Apart from the extract from the Thornhill (?) material on SN1987A that you quoted, and what might be in the Alfvén tome (I don't have access to a copy), there seems no "explicit[] discuss[ion of] the HR diagram, and [any] quantitative [account of] the observed colours, luminosities, and masses, by a direct derivation of these observables from the 'electric star' model (or theory, or ...)".

Nor is there anything even remotely resembling "explicit[] discuss[ion of] every class of variable listed in the AAVSO webpage(s) you linked to in your original post, [and] deriv[ation of] the phenomenology of each class directly from "Alfvens star model and his supernova model", and show quantitative consistency" (again, with the possible exception of the Alfvén tome).

Would you please cite the specific sections, from one or more of the materials you referenced, where each of my questions are answered?

Again, if none of these materials addresses my questions (as further clarified by my comments), to your knowledge, please say so.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

That brings up an interesting point.

Devil's Advocate: "While certain plasma theories are lacking observational evidence, partly due to the difficulty of observing certain things, partly due to the possibility they are just plain wrong, at least the engineers and physicist proposing plasma theory have both the laws of physics behind them as well as repeatable experiments to build on.

The crazy Cosmologist who invented Dark matter/Dark Energy/shock wave heating/gravitational clumping/accretion discs and all the other mysterious "gnomes" to shore up their theories, they don't have the same level of evidence to support them."



But seriously, how can anyone accept the "dark energy" crap that somebody made up to explain a huge problem with a theory?

I noticed in the "Extraordinary Claims" topic that nobody ever tried to argue that little jewel of woo woo thinking. Dark matter, sure, but nobody was dumb enough to take on Dark Energy.

I must have missed that part (I did come to the party rather late, well after all the guests had gone home ...).

If I go pick over the scraps left, and revive the thread, can I count on you, robinson, to do your usual thing?

I mean, the 'Dark Energy story' is a fascinating one, quite different from the CDM one, but nonetheless full of misunderstandings, mis-representations, marketing fluff, and (no doubt) down-right falsehoods and worse.

But back to Plasma bashing.

The biggest problems I see with PC, is the associating with the Electric Sun crowd, as well as trying to deny the redshift theory.

... snip ...

Cool!

But aren't you putting the cart somewhat before the horse?

Assuming by 'the redshift theory' you mean 'the Hubble relationship', then isn't it rather 'trying to account for the millions of relevant observations with a consistent model/theory/whatever'? With the rider of 'using a mechanism that has been observed in the lab, is self-consistent, and can be shown to be directly applicable to the relevant observations'?

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Which is pretty strange. Considering energy is neither created nor destroyed, that whole laws of physics thing, it seems the Universe has to be eternal. Otherwise some basic law of physics is being violated somehow.

How can that happen?

You know, if PC folks could nail down some of these specifics, they might be on to something.

For example, SZE observations have been unexpected, and contradictory. There is lots of speculation going on to try to get a handle on the unexpected and contradictory observations.

If the PC folks could come to the rescue, they would be hailed as minor heroes. Anyone would!

Anybody have any good ideas?

(emphasis added)

It's certainly true that there have been some unexpected observations!

And a certain paper by Lieu (I think), which went through ~six drafts (several of them quite major) before it was published (that's pretty unusual), has gained a certain, shall we say, hero status in certain quarters.

But it's also true that as more rich clusters (and not so rich ones) are observed, in x-ray and microwave and radio wavebands, we are getting a much better handle on things like background contamination, how 'radio active' cluster galaxies may complicate interpretation of observations, and the extent to which the hot electrons in the rich cluster IGM have distributions that differ from what vanilla SZ models assume.

"If the PC folks could come to the rescue" ... aye; if any were to write a decent paper on the SZE, I'm sure it would be most interesting to read ...