Plasma Cosmology - Woo or not

[Zeuzzz]

What "filaments"?

The ones thought to be "dark matter filaments" by the people who discovered this allignment.

http://space.newscientist.com/article/dn8571

Dark matter filaments

The team believes the plane could have formed in several ways. In one scenario, the galaxies may have fallen towards Andromeda along an invisible filament of dark matter. Computer simulations show these filaments can form a cosmic "web" along which galaxies flow.

Distant observations show evidence for the filaments, since maps of the universe's large-scale structure reveal thousands of galaxies lining up along intersecting streams. But such filaments have not yet been detected near the Milky Way. "One question is, could we see such filaments in our immediate surroundings?" says Grebel.

She says two fairly significant masses do lie on either side of Andromeda, with the spiral galaxy M33 just 720,000 light years away and a group of about three dozen galaxies called M81 about 11 million light years away. If a dark matter filament connects all three, Grebel says future observations may show Andromeda's satellites moving along the filament.

Z's post is about M31 and its satellite galaxies*.

That post contains no mention of any (observed) filaments associated with M31.

So do you think that these objects all lined up along this plane are just coincidence? magic?

Even the people who discovered this have the sense to know that there must be a cause for this allignment, so they suggest a "dark matter filament", but theres no need for it to be made out of something that probably doesn't exist, its likely a plasma filament in dark glow mode, probably in the townsend regime. Paschen’s law states that the breakdown voltage for a plasma to move from dark mode into glow mode depends on the product of the pressure and the distance the current travels, and in this case the pressure would be small for interstellar/galactic space, and the distance large. The difference between the two explantions is that one type of filament has been tested in controlled plasma experiments in the lab to determine its properties under various conditions, and the other explanation, well, would anyone care to explain what a dark matter filament is? what properties does it have?

It certainly makes no mention of any plasma filaments!

No, it doesn't. They think that dark matter filaments will do the job. Well, PC preferes to ground their models to some form of reality.

You see, these satellites seem to be in a plane ... and I'm sure you know that, in Peratt's model, a spiral galaxy is pierced through its nucleus with a twisted pair of (essentially linear) filaments.

So I suppose that you agree with the Dark matter filaments theory, as opposed to plasma filaments? Care to elaborate on the properties of Dark matter filaments? Lets start with something easy; how do they sustain their filamentary structure?

This observation would be quite easy to explain with Peratts model if the galaxy was rotating slowly through space around a line travelling from nucleus to outer arm (in the plane of the galaxy) at a very low speed, even just enough for one or two rotations during its entire lifetime (which I would think would be undetectable from our intruments?), the filaments would disperse the satelites in the plane it sweeps out.

Further, in Peratt's model, the filaments are far, far narrower than "52,000 light years" (~< 0.5 kpc, IIRC) - you did read Peratt's paper(s), didn't you?

And why would you assume that the sateilites would be dispersed over the entire 30 kpc? I would have certainly thought that they would be alligned along the centre of the filament, where the current density is greatest, in the central 2-3kpc or so, so in a plane of 1.6 KPC would be about right. When you look at the infared pictures of andromeda it makes it much easier to see the structure of the interacting filaments that form the spiral structure.

Galaxies just make so much more sense when viewed as two/three interacting plasma filaments instead of one central mass which happens to have two supported filaments extending from it.

In other words, Z has, once again, shown his appalling lack of understanding of even the PC models he is so enthusiastic about filling his posts with.

Once agiain DRD has shown appalling lack of critical thinking and how the observations may be explained. Unless there has been a recent breakthrough in the theory she takes preference with (these allignments caused by dark matter filaments), and the properties of dark matter filaments have been discovered, and are now well understood?

 

[robinson]

There are ionized gasses that do not have the properties of plasma and so are not plasma.

What are those gases? And where do they occur?

 

[Zeuzzz]

Nothing to do with the galactic plasma filaments in Peratts model as you know.

So you think that these allignments are juts coincidence? or do you think that there is some type of filament accountable for their position? (like the people who discovered the allignment did)

So I take it now that you think that Peratts model creates the galaxies initially, the galactic plasma filaments vanish at some point and then dark matter magically appears and explains the rotation curves that we see?

I was thinking more along the lines of when the Bulge+Disk Gravitational Models developed by gallo et al, which although not mentioned in Peratts work, I think are the most compatible with it than any of the other usual galaxy models. Mainly due to the fact they eliminate the need for the huge invisible halos of dark matter required in most, and use a similar idea of a different mass distribution to explain the shape of the galaxies.

Plasma effects are certainly active in the formation and evolution of galaxies from the original hot plasma (Refs.[65]-[67]). However, for mature spiral galaxies, the free plasma density has dropped to levels sufficiently low that plasma does not affect the predominantly gravitational galactic dynamics. [....]

By contrast, our results indicate no massive peripheral spherical halos of mysterious Dark Matter and no deviations from simple gravity. Our total galactic mass determinations are also in reasonable agreement with data. The controversy is summarized as follows.
We believe there is ordinary baryonic matter within the galactic disc distributed more towards the galactic periphery which is cooler with lower opacity/emissivity (and therefore darker). Others believe there are massive peripheral spherical halos of mysterious Dark Matter surrounding the galaxies.

10 Acknowledgements

We gratefully acknowledge Louis Marmet, Ken Nicholson and Michel Mizony whose intuition and computational techniques convinced us that galactic rotation could be described by suitable mass distributions of ordinary baryonic matter within galactic disks. Anthony Peratt originally sparked our interest with his plasma dynamical calculations re the formation and evolution of galaxies. Ari Brynjolfsson has energetically supported our efforts.

In Peratts model he addresses many galaxy transitions, from radioquiet QSO's to peculiar and Seyfert spiral galaxies, and peculiar and Seyfert galaxies
to normal and barred galaxies, I suspect that the bulge model could follow on in time from this as the plasma density decreases and the plasma effects become less dominant. Its essentially the same idea, using a difference mass distribution to expalin galactic rotation curves, although a model would have to be created for the transition from Peratts model to form the disk.

This leaves many questions:

• Where is this stated in his papers?

• 
  
  
  Its not, its my opinion. Peratt might hate the idea, I dont have a clue.
  
  

  [*]What keeps dark matter away from young galaxies? Remember that if you have dark matter then you do not need his model.

  
  
  I dont mean any theories that use dark matter.
  
  

  My impression though is that they are observed to be at large distances from us, e.g. there seem to be no newly formed galaxies in the Local Group. Is this correct?

  
  
  Maybe in the local group, but 35 galaxies is hardly a good number to get good statistics for that statement. Do other clusters show this too? Depends on what you mean aswell, newly formed for standard galaxy models, or in Peratts?

 

[Reality Check]

So you think that these allignments are juts coincidence? or do you think that there is some type of filament accountable for their position? (like the people who discovered the allignment did)

I have no opinion. I just know as anyone who knows Paratt's work that they are not the galactic plasma filaments that his model predicts.

I was thinking more along the lines of when the Bulge+Disk Gravitational Models developed by gallo et al, which although not mentioned in Peratts work, I think are the most compatible with it than any of the other usual galaxy models. Mainly due to the fact they eliminate the need for the huge invisible halos of dark matter required in most, and use a similar idea of a different mass distribution to explain the shape of the galaxies.

Is this another theory to add to the "plasma cosmology" list?
Perhaps a citation?

ETA: Is it Galactic Rotation Described with Bulge+Disk Gravitational Models by C. F. Gallo, James Q. Feng. This preprint looks like the first astrophysics paper by either author (or to be more exact the first 3 papers ever submitted by the authors, all in the last 4 months and all on the same subject). James Q. Feng lists his credentials on his home page which are impressive but are not in astrophysics.

Maybe in the local group, but 35 galaxies is hardly a good number to get good statistics for that statement. Do other clusters show this too? Depends on what you mean aswell, newly formed for standard galaxy models, or in Peratts?

How about the local supercluster?
Newly formed as in any of the various galactic formation theories in "plasma cosmology". Pick a dozen or so and give the predictions.

 

[Zeuzzz]

Is this another theory to add to the "plasma cosmology" list?
Perhaps a citation?

I thought I did to the last one, but I forgot it; http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0804/0804.3203v1.pdf

 

[Zeuzzz]

How about the local supercluster?
Newly formed as in any of the various galactic formation theories in "plasma cosmology". Pick a dozen or so and give the predictions.

what excactly do you want prediction wise?

Radio galaxies/Double radio galaxies are thought to be the initial stage of galaxy formation. These can evolve into a couple of different types over time, depending on various parameters in the model, usually ending up as elliptical or spiral.

A good brief overview here;

http://plasmascience.net/tpu/galaxy.Radio.html

Because the burst of intense radiation occurs when the two pinches are separated, the synchrotron light, focused in the direction of the acellerating electrons, is that of two intense fowardly-directed 'search lights': a double synchrotron radiation source.

When scaled to the dimensions of a galaxy, each pinch having a diameter of 35 kpc, 10 kpc thick, separated initially 80 kpc apart, the synchrotron radiated power is of the order of 10³⁷ watts, that is, the power recorded from double radio galaxies.[...]

An example of two such swept up dusty plasmas colliding within the magnetic trap is shown below. The end result, several billion years later is a magnetic-field-free elliptical galaxy.

While the high-energy-density plasma experiment lasts but for a billionth of a second, as plasmas scale in size and parameter, the scaled plasma morphology for a galactic dimensioned interaction is about 10 billion years.

It should be noted that while the energy delivered to the pinch region is through a cylindrical or filamental current, the interaction region itself is that of two dusty plasmas, each 35 kpc in diameter and 10 kpc thick. After about 10 billion years, the morphology the interaction is that of a well-developed spiral galaxy.

 

[Reality Check]

what excactly do you want prediction wise?

What do they predict for the age distribution of galaxies with distance from the observer?

 

[Dancing David]

If that's true, why do so many scientific papers refer to "slightly ionized plasmas"?

Perhaps this is the reason?

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-plasma.htm "Even if only 1% of the atoms have lost their electrons, a gas will display plasma-like behavior."

http://plasmadictionary.llnl.gov/te...d=Term&-SortOrder=ascending&ABC=D&page=detail "A plasma with a low degree of ionization is usually a cold plasma, but it is possible to have a plasma with a low degree of ionization (i.e. mostly neutral gas) where the ions present are highly ionized (few electrons left on each actual ion)."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degree_of_ionization "when electricity passes through a novelty plasma ball, perhaps 1% of the gases are ionized (sometimes referred to as partially ionized). ... snip ... A gas may begin to behave like plasma when the degree of ionization is as little as 0.01%"

It depends BAC, in the famous quote that Alfven made he is referring to the electrical repulsion of plasma interaction amongst it's parts over the purely mechanical collisions when he says 'treat as highly ionized'.

In some situation you will have the defintions of plasma met and in others you won't at 1% ionization.

 

[tusenfem]

Definition of a Plasma

What are those gases? And where do they occur?

Okay, I checked out some books on my shelve to get a very nice definition of a plasma, I found that for this discussion, the paragraph in Baumjohann & Treumann, chapter 1 of Basic Space Plasma Physics was very nice ideed. (and I am sure this is going to bring a lot of discussion, which I will not participate in). It is astonishing enough how the discussion goes, without anyone so much as look at an introductory book and look up what the definition of a plasma is.

Plasma is mainly defined by COLLECTIVE BEHAVIOUR, that is something that may not be forgotten.

So okay, here we go

1.1 Definition of a Plasma

A plasma is a gas of charged particles, which consists of equal numbers of free positive and negative charge carriers. Having roughly the same number of charges with different sign in the samve volume element guarantees that the plasma behaves quasineutral in the stationary state. On average a plasma looks electrically neutral to the outside, sinde randomly distributed particle electric charge fields mutually cancel.

For a particle to be considered a free particle, its typical potential energy due to its nearest neighbour must be much smaller than its random kinetic (thermal) energy. Only then the particle's motion is practically free from the influence by other charged particles in its neighbourhood als long as no direct collisions take place.

Since the particles in a plasma have to overcome the coupling with their neighbours, they must have thermal energies above some electronvolts. Thus a typical plasma is a hot and highly ionized gas. While only a few natural plasmas, such as flames or lightning strokes, can be found near the Earth's surface, plasmas are abundant in the universe. More than 99% of all known matter is in the plasma state.

The authors then go on with the characteristics for a plasma, because with the above definition it is not finished yet, it needs to be quantified by the following criteria:

1. DeBye shielding.
By looking at the Coulomb potential of a charge q, which is placed in a "plasma" and at the way the charge carriers behave because of this extra charges, it is found that the field of this extra charge gets shielded off by the original charge carriers. This happens over distance of the DeBye length λ_D.

In order for a plasma to be quasineutral, the physical dimension of the system, L, must be large compared to λ_D:
λ_D << L
otherwise there is not enough space for the collective shielding effect to occur, and we have a simple ionized gas. This requirement is often called the first plasma criterion.

2. Plasma Parameter
This has to do with the density of the plasma and the DeBye length.

Since the shielding effect is the result of the collective behaviour inside a DeBye sphere of radius λ_D, it is necessary that this sphere contains enough particles. The number of particles inside a DeBye sphere is (4/3)πn_eλ_D³. The term n_eλ_D³ is often called the plasma parameter, Λ, and the second criterion for a plasma reads:
Λ = n_eλ_D³ >> 1
[snip]
This mean potential energy of a particle due to its nearest neighbour, which is inversely proportional to the mean interparticle distance, and thus proportional to n_e^1/3, must be much smaller than its mean energy, k_BT_e

3. Plasma Frequency
A typical oscillation of the plasma happens when both species (i.e. the positive and the negative) are moved wrt. eachother. (Here we mean that all negatives move 1 meter to the left and all positives one meter to the right, to make it visible (although rediculous)). The equations of motion for the distributions will show that the plasma starts oscillating COLLECTIVELY around the zero point at the so called plasma frequency
ω_p² = n_e e² / m_e ε₀

Some plasmas, like the Earth's ionosphere, are not fully ionized. Here we have a substantial number of neutral particles and if the charged particles collide too often with neutrals, the electrons will be forced into equilibrium with the neutrals and the medium does not behave as a plasma anymore, but simply like a neutral gas. For the electrons to remain unaffected by collisions with neutrals, the average time between two electron-neutral collisions, τ_n, must be larger that the reciprocal of the plasma frequency:
ω_p τ_n >> 1
This is the third criterion for an ionized medium to behave as a plasma.

For more info on plasma physics, I wrote a whole thread on Plasma Physics for Dummies on the BAUT forum (www bautforum com/general-science/63183-plasma-physics-dummies (dot) html, not allowed to post links yet). But going to a library, and not just googling and wikiing does wonders.

 

[robinson]

For more info on plasma physics, I wrote a whole thread on Plasma Physics for Dummies on the BAUT forum (www bautforum com/general-science/63183-plasma-physics-dummies (dot) html, not allowed to post links yet). But going to a library, and not just googling and wikiing does wonders.

Thanks for the input. The simplest explanation I found was that a plasma, by definition, conducts electricity. So if a partially ionized gas won't conduct, then it can't be considered plasma.

I also found, while reading science sites about this, that some people claim lightning, fire and fluorescent lights are not plasma.

 

[robinson]

www.bautforum.com/general-science/63183-plasma-physics-dummies.html

For those who follow links.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

The ones thought to be "dark matter filaments" by the people who discovered this allignment.

http://space.newscientist.com/article/dn8571

Ah, stupid dumb words again ...

What is it robinson said, in a recent post (in another thread)? Something about semantics and refuges ...

In any case, it seems that you are trying to do some science by being a word chef: the NS article says "filament" and Peratt says "filament" and both are used in the context of galaxies, so toss them together (with or without a nice aceto balsamico) and bingo!

So do you think that these objects all lined up along this plane are just coincidence? magic?

Even the people who discovered this have the sense to know that there must be a cause for this allignment, so they suggest a "dark matter filament", but theres no need for it to be made out of something that probably doesn't exist, its likely a plasma filament in dark glow mode, probably in the townsend regime. Paschen’s law states that the breakdown voltage for a plasma to move from dark mode into glow mode depends on the product of the pressure and the distance the current travels, and in this case the pressure would be small for interstellar/galactic space, and the distance large. The difference between the two explantions is that one type of filament has been tested in controlled plasma experiments in the lab to determine its properties under various conditions, and the other explanation, well, would anyone care to explain what a dark matter filament is? what properties does it have?

Ah yes, a word salad with ingredients that explode taste on the tongue!

Z, may I suggest that:

a) articles in New Scientist are not very good, as primary sources

b) science, and astrophysics in particular, requires rather more than word salad?

But since you've put forward this idea, and changed the subject once again, why not go the whole hog and explain how this works? You know, with numbers and equations and stuff like that.

No, it doesn't. They think that dark matter filaments will do the job. Well, PC preferes to ground their models to some form of reality.

Indeed.

But wait! This 'a subset of M31's satellite galaxies are in a plane Peratt plasma filament' PC model is published where, exactly?

So I suppose that you agree with the Dark matter filaments theory, as opposed to plasma filaments? Care to elaborate on the properties of Dark matter filaments? Lets start with something easy; how do they sustain their filamentary structure?

There are at least two excellent internet discussion fora where you could go and ask these questions, confident that they would receive thoughtful and helpful replies, PhysicsForums and BAUT. As you have blotted your coffee book in both, rather badly, you won't have the opportunity to go and ask questions there, but any other reader sufficiently interested can.

Of course, to answer these here, in a thread about Plasma Cosmology and whether it is woo or not would not be a good idea (but nice try, once again, at diverting attention away from your continued inability/refusal to answer questions about the PC ideas you yourself have posted).

This observation would be quite easy to explain with Peratts model if the galaxy was rotating slowly through space around a line travelling from nucleus to outer arm (in the plane of the galaxy) at a very low speed, even just enough for one or two rotations during its entire lifetime (which I would think would be undetectable from our intruments?), the filaments would disperse the satelites in the plane it sweeps out.

Indeed it would ...

... if the only requirement for 'explain' were 'wave your hands' or 'concoct a word salad'.

Sadly (for you), the default approach in this part of the JREF forum ("Science", remember) is that of contemporary science.

Now, if you'd like to develop your idea, write it up, and get it published in a journal such as ApJ, ...

And why would you assume that the sateilites would be dispersed over the entire 30 kpc? I would have certainly thought that they would be alligned along the centre of the filament, where the current density is greatest, in the central 2-3kpc or so, so in a plane of 1.6 KPC would be about right. When you look at the infared pictures of andromeda it makes it much easier to see the structure of the interacting filaments that form the spiral structure.

[qimg]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/24/Andromeda_galaxy_Ssc2005-20a1_halfsize.jpg/800px-Andromeda_galaxy_Ssc2005-20a1_halfsize.jpg[/qimg]

Galaxies just make so much more sense when viewed as two/three interacting plasma filaments instead of one central mass which happens to have two supported filaments extending from it.

(bold added)

Let's see now ... if I go to a local kindergarten with some nice piccies (IR of M31, or an artist's impression of M31 and its satellite galaxies, or ...) and ask where the horsie and the piggy are, can I use the results to present a theory of how horsies and piggies are what makes the structure of M31?

Reminds me of a Peanuts carton, where three are lying on their backs looking up at a cloudy sky ...

Meanwhile, back in the real universe, how about giving us some rough estimates of the density, magnetic field, and composition of these 'Peratt plasma filaments'?

And how about explaining why none are visible? After all, if they are plasma, of the kind Peratt proposed, then at least one of the following should be easily seen, right (this is an incomplete list)?

* x-ray emission (due to synchrotron, and/or bremsstrahlung, and/or just plain thermal processes)

* polarisation of the CMB, in the direction of the filaments

* absorption lines imposed on the spectra of background objects

* Sunyaev-Zel'dovich effect.

Once agiain DRD has shown appalling lack of critical thinking and how the observations may be explained. Unless there has been a recent breakthrough in the theory she takes preference with (these allignments caused by dark matter filaments), and the properties of dark matter filaments have been discovered, and are now well understood?

Huh?

Oh right, I keep forgetting ... in PC, an acceptable form of logic is that of the false dichotomy; in this case

EITHER {Z's creative extension of Peratt filaments} OR {dark matter filaments, per the NS article}, and as {DM MUST BE WRONG!} THEREFORE PC MUST BE RIGHT!!

 

[sol invictus]

Zeuzzz, anyone that has ever seen a DM simulation knows that it forms long, thread-like structures as a result of gravitational collapse (typically gravity is the only interaction in those simulations). I don't know if that's related to the observations you posted, but like it or not "filamentary" structures on at least some scales are an immediate consequence of DM plus gravity.

 

[BeAChooser]

In some situation you will have the defintions of plasma met and in others you won't at 1% ionization.

And what is it that apparently makes you and your friends believe the material observed in the Bullet Cluster case isn't plasma at more than 1% ionization? Keep in mind that the mainstream says 99.99% PLUS of the matter we actually see is plasma. And keep in mind that everytime the mainstream looks closely at a patch of "gas" ... it almost always turns out to be plasma. So why ASSUME the patch in the Bullet Cluster is neutral gas and not plasma?

 

[BeAChooser]

Zeuzzz, anyone that has ever seen a DM simulation knows that it forms long, thread-like structures as a result of gravitational collapse (typically gravity is the only interaction in those simulations).

And EVERYWHERE we have looked, we've found electromagnetic effects on plasmas producing long, thread-like structures. Even rope like ones! Alfven predicted the universe would be filamentary at all scales. And he was right. Without calling on the gnome of DM even once.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

And EVERYWHERE we have looked, we've found electromagnetic effects on plasmas producing long, thread-like structures. Even rope like ones! Alfven predicted the universe would be filamentary at all scales. And he was right. Without calling on the gnome of DM even once.

This is a joke, right?

BAC, EVERYWHERE the kindergarten class has looked, they've found horsies, and piggies and duckies and ... Even rope like ones!

According to Alfvén, how does the universe scale, as the characteristic size increases? Or, to be a bit more technical, what did Alfvén predict P(k) would be?

Now real plasma filaments have properties like magnetic field strengths, densities, compositions, temperatures, ... What did Alfvén predict the properties of these plasma filaments would be? And what have astronomers inferred these properties are, from observations?

[HINT: Alfvén's predictions are, almost universally, inconsistent with the observations ... except where his predictions were so general that they were unfalsifiable ...]

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Indeed.

In the case of rich (relaxed) clusters, do you have an explanation for the quantitative observations of the hot gas/plasma that does NOT involve CDM?

I mean a consistent explanation ...

[...]

Bump.

May I - and other readers of this thread - expect an answer from you BAC?

If so, when?

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Um, ... er, ...

In a thread devoted to Plasma Cosmology (PC) (yes, I'm shouting, in the (vain?) hope you will pay attention), what does Burbidge's (personal) article have to do with PC?

If you won't take the time and trouble (in this thread) to say what you think PC actually is, and if (as others have pointed out) every time you got close to saying what it is (in other threads) you changed your tune, went off at tangents, etc, then what is it that we can actually discuss?
..
The history is interesting ... but it tells us little about how well the actual observations match one theory or another, and surely this is the more important thing to examine?

Further, even if Burbidge (or some other author) has a paper convincingly showing that the space density of starlight, averaged over a large enough volume, is equivalent to a ~3K blackbody, so what?

Unless and until you explicitly tie such a thing to Plasma Cosmology, what's the point of discussing it (in this thread)?
.Huh?

I wasn't aware that anyone, in this thread, had put forward any reasons 'to "refute" plasma cosmology', much less ones that were based solely on 'Big Bang material' ... would you (or any other reader) be kind enough to point to posts which contain such reasons?
.Maybe; however, it had no connection to Plasma Cosmology, either explicit or implicit.Quite.

So, what's the connection between what you posted (in post#42) and Plasma Cosmology?

So, what's the connection between what you posted (in post#42) and Plasma Cosmology?

So, what's the connection between what you posted (in post#42) and Plasma Cosmology?

So, what's the connection between what you posted (in post#42) and Plasma Cosmology?

I seem to have missed that ...
I can't speak for anyone else, but ...

The reasons I ignored it were two: I was busy responding to other posts, and was going to get around to yours later; and your post seemed, to me, to have nothing to do with the explicit topic of this thread ... which is, in case you missed it, Plasma Cosmology.

Oh, and I should add that I find it rather odd that you say you're busy, yet have time to write posts that clearly required some time spent on collecting source material ... all the while ignoring all the other 'open items' that have followed from your earlier posts, both in this thread and (many) others.
Huh?

I wasn't aware that you had a 'position' at all! At least, not one that concerns a concisely described alternative cosmology called 'Plasma Cosmology', much less any such based on standard scientific methods and approaches.

For the record, again, I think your 'occasional daily comment' have been almost entirely seagull woo spam.
Bye!

And good luck with those physics exams ...

Bump.

This is post #88, the third on this list of DRD posts that contain questions directly relevant to whether Plasma Cosmology is woo or not, as they pertain to answers/posts by Z.

Here is Z's post #42.

The first two on that list, post #3 and post #9, have been answered by Z here.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

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)"

[...]

Thank you Z.

In post #775, I talked a bit about redshifts.

From Z's concise definition of PC, we can see - quite starkly - just how serious the inconsistency between theory and observations/experiment is.

"a scalar expansion as predicted from the FRW metric is not accepted as part of this evolution"

"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."

So, there's no shortage of observations of the redshifts of galaxies and quasars (and some other objects too); and plenty of independent studies confirming the Hubble relationship between distance and redshift.

There is, however, a complete dearth of "physical processes observable in laboratories on Earth" that can be used to explain the Hubble relationship*.

I know Z has tried a couple of times to address this (neither robinson nor BAC have, as far as I know), but they have been either very feeble explanations or abject failures, depending on how relaxed you want to be about applying the usual criteria in science.

It took a while, but now we can clearly see that PC fails, as science, in one (of three) of its self-proclaimed core assumptions.

* at least in a consistent fashion; once you relax the consistency requirement - making PC thereby the very definition of woo - it's almost too easy to dream up an explanation.

 

[Dancing David]

And what is it that apparently makes you and your friends believe the material observed in the Bullet Cluster case isn't plasma at more than 1% ionization? Keep in mind that the mainstream says 99.99% PLUS of the matter we actually see is plasma. And keep in mind that everytime the mainstream looks closely at a patch of "gas" ... it almost always turns out to be plasma. So why ASSUME the patch in the Bullet Cluster is neutral gas and not plasma?

What was that about?
Do you feel better now?

More importantly why would it matter if you are asking that questiion.