Plasma Cosmology - Woo or not

[DeiRenDopa]

And this is what, in my opinion, makes PC woo. This default assumption goes against piece after piece of observational evidence.

Not exactly.

It goes against piece after piece of assumptions in the Big Bang that have been piled up ontop of each other to prove the creationist perspective of the universe. Name one of these observations you speak of, and I can reply directly.

"This default assumption" (from Z's post that TT quoted):

The default assumption is that everything we observe in the universe (like the CMB for example) can be attributed to processes ongoing today, where we can be much more sure about what is occuring.

Z, in the >30 posts I listed there are many open questions. Several of these open questions relate - directly - to exactly what TT said!

So, when will you be replying directly to those open questions with specific, detailed observations that are strongly inconsistent with this default assumption?

(and do I need to put this in bold, and make the fontsize 10, before you will deign to even read it?)

I think many cosmologists would tell you this means plasma cosmology isn't a cosmology at all.

Indeed they probably would. They think that any cosmology has to be used to prove the Big Bang, or any other slant on an initial event of creation. If an initial event of creation (the Big Bang) is wrong, that’s utter nonsense.

After all this time and you still persist in writing such nonsense?

When will you take the trouble to learn what LCDM cosmological models are actually about?

Anything that does entertain their creationist like world view would just be dismissed as not a cosmology at all, and so not worthy of consideration. A completely different type of cosmology does not have to be based on the same assumptions as the other ones. Plasma cosmology does not include an origin for the universe, certainly not a Big Bang, but does not rule one out either. The universe is assumed infinite in time, as because we don’t see anything being created out of nothing, or disappearing into nothing now, it is assumed that this is indeed the case.

But, on the other hand, as we have seen in this thread sooooo many times, plasma cosmology (PC) is also quite unconcerned about inconsistencies (internal, with well-established theories of physics where the domains of applicability overlap, and (above all) with good experimental results and observations).

For example: if "the universe is assumed infinite in time", where are the 80 trillion year old objects?

Quite a simple step really. Plasma Cosmology is a completely different type of cosmology. Its similar in some respects to fractal cosmologies, and infact predicts a fractal structure to the universe on the large scale, which recent observations seem to be confirming.

[...]

Classic!

So, Z, how were distances estimated, in these "recent observations"?

Specifically, in which of these observations were one or other variant of Arpian (or any of the et. al.s') "intrinsic redshift" used in the logic chain(s) that lead to the "fractal structure to the universe on the large scale" conclusion?

(to be continued)

 

[Zeuzzz]

First, it's nice to see that you have not done a complete runner Z.

Tell us all Zeuzzz, what does Scott's "The Electric Sky" have to say about what powers the Sun?

I - and maybe other readers too - am looking forward to a real answer to this question.

As someone who has been aware of Scotts various theories about the sun for longer than even I have, I am amazed you would ask such a question. You obviously already know the answer to this question, so I suggest you answer your own question and come up with a more productive one.

 

[Zeuzzz]

So, Z, how were distances estimated, in these "recent observations"?

Specifically, in which of these observations were one or other variant of Arpian (or any of the et. al.s') "intrinsic redshift" used in the logic chain(s) that lead to the "fractal structure to the universe on the large scale" conclusion?

What would instrinsic redshifts have to do with SDSS survey that is revealing the fractal structure of the universe? they would be two quite different issues I think you will find. Wherther Arp proves his instrinsic quasar redshift ideas, or not, is nothing to do with the fact that the large scale structure of the universe appears to be fractal. As pedicted by Lerners plamsa filaments that condense gravitationally into a fractal distribution of matter.

 

[Zeuzzz]

post #3

Um, er, ...

Zeuzzz, that post you just wrote contains ~2,000 words, 2 (long) quotes, 3 links, and 11 references (each of which is a link). The 11 references include a 178 page book, and the entire proceedings of a summer workshop.

Would you mind posting a concise description of Plasma Cosmology, please?

Ok, try this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Plasma_cosmology&oldid=88919194#Overview

Overview

Plasma cosmology posits that the most important feature of the universe is that the matter it contains is composed almost entirely of astrophysical plasma. The state of matter known as plasma is an electrically-conductive collection of charged particles, possibly together with neutral particles or dust, that exhibits collective behavior and that responds as a whole to electromagnetic forces. The charged particles are usually ions and electrons resulting from heating a gas. Stars and the interstellar medium are composed of plasma of different densities. Plasma physics is uncontroversially accepted to play an important role in many astrophysical phenomena.

The basic assumptions of plasma cosmology which differ from standard cosmology are:

1. Since the universe is nearly all plasma, electromagnetic forces are equal in importance with gravitation on all scales.[10].
2. An origin in time for the universe is rejected,[11] due to causality arguments and rejection of ex nihilo models as a stealth form of creationism.[12]
3. Since every part of the universe we observe is evolving, it assumes that the universe itself is evolving as well, though a scalar expansion as predicted from the FRW metric is not accepted as part of this evolution (see static universe).

Plasma cosmology advocates emphasize the links between physical processes observable in laboratories on Earth and those that govern the cosmos; as many cosmological processes as possible are explained by the behaviour of a plasma in the laboratory.[13] Proponents contrast this with the big bang theory which has over the course of its existence required the introduction of such features as inflation, dark matter and dark energy that have not been detectable yet in laboratory experiments.

Concise enough?

A little extra. Reference 10 reads; "H. Alfvén and C.-G. Falthammar, Cosmic electrodynamics (2nd edition, Clarendon press, Oxford, 1963). "The basic reason why electromagnetic phenomena are so important in cosmical physics is that there exist celestial magnetic fields which affect the motion of charged particles in space. Under certain conditions electromagnetic forces are much stronger than gravitation. In order to illustrate this, let us suppose that a particle moves at the earth's solar distance RE ((the position vector being RE) with the earth's orbital velocity v. If the particle is a neutral hydrogen atom, it is acted upon only by the solar gravitation (the effect of a magnetic field upon a possible atomic magnetic moment being negligible). If M is the solar and m, the atomic mass, and γ is the constant of gravitation, this force is f = -γMm RE/RE3. If the atom becomes singly ionized, the ion as well as the electron (charge e = ± 4.8 x 10^-10 e.s.u.) is subject to the force fm = e(v/c) x B from an interplanetary magnetic field which near the earth's orbit is B. The strength of the interplanetary magnetic field is of the order of 10^-4 gauss, which gives fm/f ≈ 10⁷. This illustrates the enormous importance of interplanetary and interstellar magnetic fields, compared to gravitation, as long as the matter is ionized." (p.2-3)"

Post #9

I have been unable to find any material - at all - published since the first WMAP team papers presenting their results - on how PC accounts for the observed CMB, in the following respects:

1. the blackbody SED (spectral energy distribution)

2. the dipole

3. the angular power spectrum.

In each case, I mean the a quantitative account, with estimates of goodness of fit (or some other statistic), and explicit derivation from clearly stated, and with referenced sources, specific, PC cosmological model(s) being used.

If you know of any such materials, would you be kind enough to cite them?

I dont think that a quantitative account for these three particular aspects of the CMB have been accounted for. I may be mistaken, as I think that Gerrit L Verschuur has found that much of the anisotropy correlates with plasma clouds within the Milky Way (http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.3021), although the statistical significance of these correlations is still in some dispute. But you get the idea of what the future models to account for these small aspects could be.

Now, would you be so kind as to show how the spectral energy distribution, the dipole and the the angular power spectrum pose a problem to a Plasma Cosmology approach? ie, how they actually prove the Big Bang is correct, and other cosmologies wrong?

 

[DeiRenDopa]

As someone who has been aware of Scotts various theories about the sun for longer than even I have, I am amazed you would ask such a question. You obviously already know the answer to this question, so I suggest you answer your own question and come up with a more productive one.

Z,

You're the one trying to present some sort of case that PC is a science that has explanatory powers far greater than the combined results of contemporary astronomy, astrophysics, space science, geology, meteorology, ... for some combination of reasons that I still do not grasp*. Further, your intended audience is (or should be) the readers of this thread, not just one gadfly.

That you do not avail yourself of every opportunity to explain PC, to clarify points in it that are unclear, to answer pertinent questions on it, etc, etc, etc seems (to me at least) to say that you yourself are not serious about it ...

Whatever.

For the benefit of lurkers who don't already know, my understanding of Scott's 'electric sun' idea (whether in "The Electric Sky" or not), wrt what powers the Sun, is as follows:

* the Sun is powered by an isotropic flow of relativistic electrons from a source at least 50 Mpc distant

* the flow is driven by the potential difference between the Sun and some unspecified source, mediated by the Milky Way (MW) galaxy-wide magnetic field

* this giant inter-galactic current has been steady, to within ~30%, for ~5 billion years, during which time the potential difference has not changed significantly.

I'm sure Z will step in, with alacrity, to correct any misunderstandings in my simple summary.

I'm not so sure how quickly other regulars in this thread will step in to point out some of the strong inconsistencies (shall we say) in Scott's idea, including those that are so bad you wonder how he can call himself an electrical engineer with a straight face.

Oh, and as far as I know, Scott has not published, anywhere, a quantitative account of how this giant inter-galactic current accounts for the Sun's power (both today, throughout recorded human history, and over the last ~4 billion years), the structure composition and dynamics of the IPM (per several decades of in situ space probes), not to mention textbook physics.

* can't be to present a case that PC is a consistent set of theories (it is very clearly not); nor to show how PC accounts, consistently and quantitatively, for the totality of good experimental results and observations within its domain (it fails, badly, on even a tiny subset of these); nor to show that you understand the relevant underlying physics (clearly you do not); ...

 

[DeiRenDopa]

So, Z, how were distances estimated, in these "recent observations"?

Specifically, in which of these observations were one or other variant of Arpian (or any of the et. al.s') "intrinsic redshift" used in the logic chain(s) that lead to the "fractal structure to the universe on the large scale" conclusion?

What would instrinsic redshifts have to do with SDSS survey that is revealing the fractal structure of the universe? they would be two quite different issues I think you will find. Wherther Arp proves his instrinsic quasar redshift ideas, or not, is nothing to do with the fact that the large scale structure of the universe appears to be fractal. As pedicted by Lerners plamsa filaments that condense gravitationally into a fractal distribution of matter.

ROTFL!!

Z, you really are precious! Pity there's too many words here for a sig; the combination of ignorance, complacency, and flawed thinking is about as good as it gets.

Dude, if by "SDSS survey" you are referring to http://arxiv.org/abs/0805.1132, may I suggest that you take the time to read it? In particular, put your thinking cap on and tease out how Labini et al. came up with the distance estimators they use (HINT: somewhere at the heart of the logic chain is the Hubble relationship).

Now, if redshifts are not reliable estimators of distance (and that's what Arp et al. have been saying, in one way or another, for several decades now) then the (3D) INPUT distributions that Labini et al. analysed are wrong, and as they say in IT, garbage in garbage out.

Oh, and are those the same "Lerners plamsa filaments" which he uses to account for the CMB (NOT)? The ones which his only paper on the subject* must be at distances consistent with the Hubble relationship interpretation of the redshifts of ... (drum roll please) ... quasars??

Z, take you pick: Arp et al. are right (and the universe cannot be said to be fractal, based on analyses of SDSS data, and Lerner's plasma filament ideas are bunk too) OR Labini et al. are right (and the Arp et al. papers are all wrong).

Which is it?

Oh wait, I forgot ... in PC consistency is not required (like the Red Queen, PC adherents can believe six impossibly inconsistent things before breakfast ...)

* as far as I know

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Just briefly

[...]

I have been unable to find any material - at all - published since the first WMAP team papers presenting their results - on how PC accounts for the observed CMB, in the following respects:

1. the blackbody SED (spectral energy distribution)

2. the dipole

3. the angular power spectrum.

In each case, I mean the a quantitative account, with estimates of goodness of fit (or some other statistic), and explicit derivation from clearly stated, and with referenced sources, specific, PC cosmological model(s) being used.

If you know of any such materials, would you be kind enough to cite them?

I dont think that a quantitative account for these three particular aspects of the CMB have been accounted for.

Thanks for admitting this ... such an absence is surely rather embarrassing, wouldn't you say? I mean the data - including the raw data as it came from the satellite - has been publicly available almost from Day One ... more than enough time for Peratt, Lerner, et al. to sharpen their pencils and tweak their models (with any number of arbitrary parameters, ad hoc hypotheses, etc, etc, etc).

I may be mistaken, as I think that Gerrit L Verschuur has found that much of the anisotropy correlates with plasma clouds within the Milky Way (http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.3021), although the statistical significance of these correlations is still in some dispute.

Nice try.

Z, there's no - zero, nada, nil, ... - "dispute"; Verschuur's "correlations" are not real (even his sponsor says so).

Oh, and you might like to re-read Verschuur's paper*.

But you get the idea of what the future models to account for these small aspects could be.

Sure thing ...

... and when such future models are published, you will be the first to tell us all about them, won't you?

Until then ...

Now, would you be so kind as to show how the spectral energy distribution, the dipole and the the angular power spectrum pose a problem to a Plasma Cosmology approach? ie, how they actually prove the Big Bang is correct, and other cosmologies wrong?

Nice try², but no cigar.

First, if you/PC lives and dies by "proof" (as in "actually prove {PC} is correct"), then we can all go home now ... PC does no such thing, nor does it set out to do any such thing, and no part of contemporary science does either ... "prove" is what mathematicians do, not scientists.

Second, the CMB spectral energy distribution, the dipole and the the angular power spectrum "pose a problem to a Plasma Cosmology approach" because said approach is so universal in its claims (of scope, if nothing else); ergo, said approach MUST be able to account for these, quantitatively, if it is to be taken seriously (in its own terms).

Let's look at what happens if these are not taken seriously, by PC believers ...

For starters, there's no doubt whatsoever that these CMB phenomena are within the stated scope of PC.

For seconds, there's no doubt whatsoever that PC claims to be complete, comprehensive, and (above all) scientific.

It follows that anything (within scope) unexplained is an anomaly, or worse.

Seems to me that these aspects of the CMB do, almost by definition, pose a problem for the PC approach ...

(to be continued)

* "plasma clouds within the Milky Way" - NOT

 

[Dancing David]

I also object to the BBE being ex nihilio, we just can't say what was there before, we can speculate all we want and perhaps come to testable hypothesis but the Big Expansion Event does not have to be ex nihilio.

What is wrong with the nuclear theory and billions of years Zeuzzz, we have billions of years to look at.

 

[Tubbythin]

Though I wouldn't want to do that personally, as i have my doubts about the accuaracy of the nuclear model, especially when dealing with timescales of that magnitude.

Go on...

 

[Tubbythin]

It goes against piece after piece of assumptions in the Big Bang that have been piled up ontop of each other to prove the creationist perspective of the universe. Name one of these observations you speak of, and I can reply directly.

Explanation of Olbers' paradox.

Indeed they probably would. They think that any cosmology has to be used to prove the Big Bang, or any other slant on an initial event of creation. If an initial event of creation (the Big Bang) is wrong, that’s utter nonsense.

You missed my point. Google definitions of cosmology. Then compare those definitions to your comment I was responding to.

Anything that does entertain their creationist like world view would just be dismissed as not a cosmology at all, and so not worthy of consideration.

You're starting to sound like a conspiracy theorist.

A completely different type of cosmology does not have to be based on the same assumptions as the other ones. Plasma cosmology does not include an origin for the universe, certainly not a Big Bang, but does not rule one out either. The universe is assumed infinite in time, as because we don’t see anything being created out of nothing, or disappearing into nothing now, it is assumed that this is indeed the case. Quite a simple step really.

We can't see the big bang because the universe was opaque. Of course you'd expect to see something from when the universe became transparent. Oh wait, we do.

Plasma Cosmology is a completely different type of cosmology. Its similar in some respects to fractal cosmologies, and infact predicts a fractal structure to the universe on the large scale, which recent observations seem to be confirming. The universal distribution is not smooth and homogeneous, nearly every new observation is now showing that the universe is not at all homogeneous, but clumpy, like a fractal.

Depends on what scale we're talking.

I haven't. You seem to be confused between me saying that the universe is in a steady state, literally, and Hoyles steady state theory. Easy mistake to make

So I'm wrong about you talking about QSST?

And neither do PC proponents. That would just be silly.

Please name some of these inconsistencies, and show where they are being used "both at once" and I can reply directly.

DRD just did.

Every area of science relies on observation. Yes, the universe is your lab from which you deduce models, but PC proponents like to tie down the models of the universe to some form of reality, reproducible in actual in situ laboratory Earth based laboratories. Unfortunately for most ‘mainstream’ theories, no-one has ever found any dark matter, strange matter, Strange Quark Matter, exotic matter, expansion, or dark energy to use, and there’s insufficient knowledge of how gravity functions at small scales to induce it for direct experiments.

No one has ever made a replica of the Sun in the lab either. Do you think the existence of the Sun is under debate?
Btw, when you say "no-one has ever found... expansion...", what do you mean?

There would be no knowledge in astrophysics without the reception of radiation, whether electromagnetic, neutrino, gravitational or cosmic rays (the latter forming an exception in having non-zero rest mass),

At least two flavours of neutrino have mass too.
By the way, what do you think our primary evidence for the existence of the Sun is?

but from Earth based experiments, where we have many extra controls on our tests, we can gain a lot more knowledge than what is inferred alone from distant radiation. That’s why PC places the experimental EM laboratory experiments in such high regard, a certain little method sometimes referred to as the experimental method.

So why do you keep spouting on about intrinsic redshift? If this doesn't follow you're experimental method.

Since the attractive field of magnetostatics obeys the same geometric attributes as gravity (inverse square), but is much stronger, you can often apply a weak magnetic/electric field to replicate the effects that gravity would have on the space object in question.

Even when the mass is such that under GR it would contract to form a blackhole?

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Arp et al., quasars, fractal universes, SDSS survey/data, etc (II).

For the benefit of any lurkers/readers who are in doubt, here's why (one reason anyway) Arpian 'intrinsic redshifts' pull the rug under at least the Labini et al. 'fractal universe' conclusion:

Labini et al. assume that mass/matter is distributed in a way that follows the stuff that we can see (galaxies, intra-cluster medium, etc), and that that mass/matter is at distances from us proportional to the observed redshifts (modulo some modest 'peculiar velocity').

There are many variants on the Arp et al. 'intrinsic redshift'; some have it that even stars in our own MW galaxy have it (i.e. if you could bring a chunk of such a star into your lab, and stick it in a spectrograph, the atomic transition lines would be different than those of your standard H, Na, Fe, etc), others that it is a property only of galaxies (i.e. galaxy stuffs would differ in the lines you'd see in your lab spectrograph, systematically by galaxy type, or some other attribute), yet others that it is a property of only some subclasses (e.g. AGN, or quasars).

Take just the variant Z cited - quasars have 'intrinsic redshifts'; in this variant, quasars are all (or mostly) 'local', they are associated with big, bright, nearby galaxies.

Obviously, Labini et al. did not include quasars in their input distributions of mass/matter! However, if quasars turn out to be 'local', then they must be included.

Oh, and in case you're wondering ... there are an awful lot of quasars - far more than the number of big, bright, nearby galaxies - so leaving them out (if they are, in fact, 'local') would completely mess up any conclusions about fractal distributions of mass/matter ...

Questions?

 

[Dancing David]

As someone who has been aware of Scotts various theories about the sun for longer than even I have, I am amazed you would ask such a question. You obviously already know the answer to this question, so I suggest you answer your own question and come up with a more productive one.

Poor form, do you want to explain any data that Scott's theory explains or is this just grand hand waving ?

 

[Belz...]

As someone who has been aware of Scotts various theories about the sun for longer than even I have, I am amazed you would ask such a question. You obviously already know the answer to this question, so I suggest you answer your own question and come up with a more productive one.

 

[robinson]

Tell us all Zeuzzz, what does Scott's "The Electric Sky" have to say about what powers the Sun?

Scott's "The Electric Sky", Is that the same as this?
http://www.electric-cosmos.org/sun.htm

Have you read it? Anybody?

 

[robinson]

Nevermind.

http://www.electric-cosmos.org/Rejoinder.htm

It is the same dude.

 

[sol invictus]

Nevermind.

The great thing about Zeuzzz is that even after an idea (such as the electric sun, or the idea that galactic rotation curves are affected by EM forces) has been exposed as utterly absurd in a conversation he participated in, he continues to bring them up as if there were nothing wrong. I've seen this happen multiple times (even in cases where he himself agreed with the conclusion previously). It's like he re-sets his brain to a previous state, ignoring all the information (not to mention logic) which passed through it since then.

My diagnosis is that this indicates either profound stupidity, pseudo-religious conviction, or heavy drug use. Being charitable I tend towards the second.

 

[Zeuzzz]

The great thing about Zeuzzz is that even after an idea (such as the electric sun, or the idea that galactic rotation curves are affected by EM forces) has been exposed as utterly absurd in a conversation he participated in, he continues to bring them up as if there were nothing wrong.

Any evidence? would it really be that hard to give a reason? "the idea that galactic rotation curves are affected by EM forces has been exposed as utterly absurd... [because .................]". That way you are not just making personal comments in your usual fashion, and I could respond productively to your post.

 

[Zeuzzz]

It goes against piece after piece of assumptions in the Big Bang that have been piled up ontop of each other to prove the creationist perspective of the universe. Name one of these observations you speak of, and I can reply directly.

Explanation of Olbers' paradox.

Thats much better, something I can reply to. Olbers paradox is not a problem for PC, as the fractal nature of plasma from Lerners model of the large scale structrue of the universe predicts a fractal dimension D~2 on the large scale. New maps of the strucrture of the universe (mainly from SDSS) seem to be adding further evidence for this fractal distribution. This solves Olbers paradox.

You missed my point. Google definitions of cosmology. Then compare those definitions to your comment I was responding to.

You missed my point. It is a cosmology, but a different approach to cosmology. Fundamentally different. Plasma cosmology is built from the ground up in a "standard" (controlled physical testing) manner. It is an extension of laboratory tests with electricity, and mathematically begins with plasma physics. It is built from the small scale, and extends itself into the large scale as far as it can go with empirical evidence.

PC theory extends outward as our in-situ technologies improve and we can record the energy transfers between the sun and the Earth using newer technologies. It extends outward as we watch the acceleration of solar wind particles leave the photosphere. It extends outward as we observe "twisted magnetic ropes" between objects in space, etc, etc.

Lambda-CMD theory begins with a premise, specifically that all matter and energy originated from 0, and it attempts to build a "big picture" concept that then extends downward into the solar system and into the lab. It is a completely different approach to science. Do you understand this fundamental difference in approach to cosmology?

So I'm wrong about you talking about QSST?

Yes.

No one has ever made a replica of the Sun in the lab either. Do you think the existence of the Sun is under debate?

Wrong. People have. Starting with birkeland. And most of the work simulating many separate aspects of the sun are available to see in various PC journals. Due to the scale invarient nature of maxwells equations, and the scaleability of plasma, you categorically can make a replica of the sun, or one very near to it, in the laboratory. Take a look at Birkelands original results; http://www.plasma-universe.com/inde...ectric_Phenomena_in_Solar_Systems_and_Nebulae

or any of the other experiments done since... just found this one for instance; http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3260985.stm "Solar flare 'reproduced' in lab"

Btw, when you say "no-one has ever found... expansion...", what do you mean?

Can you demonstrate that inflation exists in reality; empirically in a controlled scientific test? Me thinks not. It remains entirely metaphysical. Matematical constructs can be very useful, but only when applied to real physics and controlled empirical evidence. I don't appreciate mathematical mythologies that rely upon unqualified concepts like gnomes, inflation, dark energy or dark matter. There is a significant difference between the mathematical modeling done by Alfven, where each mathematical model was studied in relationship to the actual behaviors of real plasma in controlled laboratory conditions, and mathematical mythologies that are based on something unqualified like inflation. Whereas Alfven made every effort to make sure his models matched physical properties of plasma in a lab, Guth made no attempt to demonstrate that inflation really existed. No one has ever demonstrated that inflation exists, or has any effect on matter. Therefore stuffing inflation into a mathematical model is pointless, just as you might find it pointless for me to create mathematical models related to magical forces.

So why do you keep spouting on about intrinsic redshift? If this doesn't follow you're experimental method.

I dont! DRD continually brings intrinsic redshift up without ever referencing any of the actual physical scientific models that have been developed to try to explain the observations Arp has collected. We are a long way away from coming up with a complete theory that explains the intrinsic redshift issue, thats why the vast majority of PC work is still using standard redshift distances, until a more conclusive theory can account for redshifts, or whatever happens in the future in this area. Work has started with various theories, raman scattering, the wolf effect, plasma redshift, various other testable tired light theories, the thing that they all have in common is that they are directly experimentally verifiable solutions that can be tested. The majority of objects in the universe seem to follow the standard redshift picture, but PC does not ignore the objects that seemingly repudiate it like most 'mainstreamers' do, they try to actually evaluate alternative theories that can account for the anomalies. If that means re-evaluating the fundamental definition of what redshift represents, then so be it.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Just briefly ...

[...]

No one has ever made a replica of the Sun in the lab either. Do you think the existence of the Sun is under debate?

Wrong. People have. Starting with birkeland.

More classic Zeuzzzzzzz!

In which lab, whether Birkeland's or not, has a mass of ~2 x 10^30 kg been assembled (could be 75% H and 25% He, or could be all Fe, or anything else)?

And most of the work simulating many separate aspects of the sun are available to see in various PC journals. Due to the scale invarient nature of maxwells equations, and the scaleability of plasma, you categorically can make a replica of the sun, or one very near to it, in the laboratory.

[... nonsense skipped]

Last time I read any of those, the stated mass of the replicas was more like ~ kgs or (perhaps) ~tonnes ... how did they address the scaling of mass, may I ask?

[...]

So why do you keep spouting on about intrinsic redshift? If this doesn't follow you're experimental method.

I dont! DRD continually brings intrinsic redshift up without ever referencing any of the actual physical scientific models that have been developed to try to explain the observations Arp has collected.

I do?!?

I wasn't aware of any such "actual physical scientific models"! Certainly none whatsoever that can account for even a modest subset of the relevant observations of quasars, much less galaxies ...

(BTW, when you finally get around to the >30 posts of unanswered questions, I think you'll find several of relevance to this).

We are a long way away from coming up with a complete theory that explains the intrinsic redshift issue, thats why the vast majority of PC work is still using standard redshift distances, until a more conclusive theory can account for redshifts, or whatever happens in the future in this area. Work has started with various theories, raman scattering, the wolf effect, plasma redshift, various other testable tired light theories, the thing that they all have in common is that they are directly experimentally verifiable solutions that can be tested.

Ah, I didn't know you could make jokes, Z, thanks!

But just in case you aren't joking ... you mean lots of ad hoc assumptions, magic fairies (a.k.a. really cranky non-science), tweaks, reams and reams of abstract math, ... and nary an observational result involving a replica of the ISM or IGM or inter-cluster medium?

But wait! There's more!!

You mean that the *best* you can say is that none of this stuff was *predicted* from plasma physics? that PC wonks are working feverishly to invent some theory for something Alfvén (not to mention Birkeland) did not include in any of his papers?!?

The majority of objects in the universe seem to follow the standard redshift picture, but PC does not ignore the objects that seemingly repudiate it like most 'mainstreamers' do, they try to actually evaluate alternative theories that can account for the anomalies. If that means re-evaluating the fundamental definition of what redshift represents, then so be it.

Ah yes ... and in the meantime continuing to promote papers that point to something like fractal dimensions out to ~30 Mpc while simultaneously denying there's any potential conflict (as in fatal inconsistency) with Arpian ideas on intrinsic redshifts for quasars? Oh, and not to mention a rolling up of sleeves to look at the methods Arp used, just in case there is something to the repeated criticism of his work (wonky statistics, for example)? Perish the thought.

 

[Zeuzzz]

Scott's "The Electric Sky", Is that the same as this?
http://www.electric-cosmos.org/sun.htm

Have you read it? Anybody?

Yep. I can see some problems with it, but I can also see various ideas worth working with. Any nuggets are small and well disguised.

The IEEE seems to be finding some merit in the lees speculative ideas for example; A Solar Junction Transistor Mechanism - IEEE Pulsed Power Plasma Science, 2007.

Abstract

Observational evidence suggests the presence of a plasma double layer (DL) above the surface of the Sun. Such a DL, together with a single charge layer (SL) directly below it, provides a straight-forward explanation for the existence of the temperature minimum in the lower corona, the X-ray emissions observed above sunspots, and the variations observed in the intensity of the solar wind. This plasma sheath is arguably a generic feature, in varying degree, surrounding all stars. Thus, this mechanism would affect stellar physics and plasma cosmology at their most fundamental level. These three charge layers constitute a pnp junction transistor-like mechanism. The action produced by this morphology controls (varies) and even cuts-off the solar wind. Acceleration of solar wind ions within the DL causes the observed temperature inversion. The failure of the invention of magnetic reconnection to explain these several observed solar phenomena is clear. A three-layer charge density structure, similar to the SL, DL anode tufting combination that is familiar to plasma engineers is a hypothesis that offers a reasonable explanation without the invention of "new science".

So its not all as crackpot as people here make out, there are many aspects that hold merit, the IEEE would not publish it if it was not.