Plasma Cosmology - Woo or not

[Reality Check]

Yes, Plasma cosmology is a collection of scientific theories with a common thread, just like any other cosmology. In any cosmology publications are written with a common thread, ie, LCDM papers are written based on this model, not all become accepted, but can still be counted as contributions to the cosmology, as they may gain popularity in the future, or turn out correct. If we had a long thread discussing LCDM, no doubt things like Self-Interacting Dark Matter (SIDM) would be discussed, Lineweaver's work, any author that writes papers for the LCDM framework, even though much of it would not be by most considered part of the LCDM cosmology.
...snipped link fest....

LCDM only includes GR and dark matter.
A paper is not a theory so they would not be included in the list.

They are not mutually inconsistent theories like the many, many, many (and many more to come) theories in your "plasma cosmology".

 

[Zeuzzz]

LCDM only includes GR and dark matter.
A paper is not a theory so they would not be included in the list.

They are not mutually inconsistent theories like the many, many, many (and many more to come) theories in your "plasma cosmology".

I could list many ideas from various people who have propsoed models in LCDM that are inconsistant. The core basic principles and assumptions in LCDM are always the same, but most of the actual specific details and models will be disputed by various people considered experts in the field, depending on who's model to explain the observations you are talking about.

And PC has core basic principles and assumptions too. They are just far more realistic assumptions than LCDM is based on.

I'll try to outline the differences in main concepts and assumptions, and you can decide which are most likely;

LCDM:

> The universe has an origin in time, an intial event of creation.
> Before this there was nothing. Which later exploded to form the Big Bang.
> Relies on Einstein's General Relativity.
> Relativity yields an infinite density and temperature at a finite time in the past (a singularity)
> 90% of the matter in the universe is dark matter that does not emit light or interact with normal baryonic matter (to explain not sufficient visible matter in the universe to account for the apparent strength of gravitational forces within and between galaxies)


PC viewpoint on these assumptions:

> The universe does not have a definitive origin in time, but one is not entirely ruled out. An actualistic approach is taken (starting now and working backwards in time to increasingly ancient states), instead of the prophetic approach that started the Big Bang theory (starting with an event and trying to prove this event with recent observations)
> As we do not see matter and energy being created out of nothing today anywhere in the universe, this didn't happen in the past.
> Relativity is used in various models in PC where it is needed to be accounted for and has experimental verification, but can not be used to prove the Big Bang as Hawkings model (that implies a gravitational singularity in our universe if the cosmological constant is zero) rests on the assumption that Thomson scattering is the most efficient process for thermalization, which is not true when the plasma nature of the universe is taken into consideration (In highly magnetized plasmas other processes such as inverse synchrotron absorption can be far more efficient, with such efficient absorption and re-emission, the amount of plasma needed to thermalize the cosmic microwave background can be orders of magnitude less than that needed to produce a singularity.)
> PC Does not show an infinite density and temperature at a finite time in the past (a singularity), as we have no reason to think that anything can obtain 'infinite density and temperature', and no-one has ever observed a singularity in nature.
> Most of the universe is made up of the same stuff we have empirical evidence for on Earth, ie, baryonic, leptonic, etc. Plasma effects can account for the rotation and structures of galaxies without the need to invoke DM to account for observations.


Which of these lists of assumptions sounds more woo? The first ones seem way too woo for my liking for what is considered a tenable scientific theory. The PC list just makes logical sense, the Big Bang list does not.

 

[Reality Check]

I could list many ideas from various people who have propsoed models in LCDM that are inconsistant. The core basic principles and assumptions in LCDM are always the same, but most of the actual specific details and models will be disputed by various people considered experts in the field, depending on who's model to explain the observations you are talking about.

And PC has core basic principles and assumptions too. They are just far more realistic assumptions than LCDM is based on.

I'll try to outline the differences in main concepts and assumptions, and you can decide which are most likely;

LCDM:

> The universe has an origin in time, an intial event of creation.
> Before this there was nothing. Which later exploded to form the Big Bang.
> Relies on Einstein's General Relativity.
> Relativity yields an infinite density and temperature at a finite time in the past (a singularity)
> 90% of the matter in the universe is dark matter that does not emit light or interact with normal baryonic matter (to explain not sufficient visible matter in the universe to account for the apparent strength of gravitational forces within and between galaxies)


PC viewpoint on these assumptions:

> The universe does not have a definitive origin in time, but one is not entirely ruled out. An actualistic approach is taken (starting now and working backwards in time to increasingly ancient states), instead of the prophetic approach that started the Big Bang theory (starting with an event and trying to prove this event with recent observations)
> As we do not see matter and energy being created out of nothing today anywhere in the universe, this didn't happen in the past.
> Relativity is used in various models in PC where it is needed to be accounted for and has experimental verification, but can not be used to prove the Big Bang as Hawkings model (that implies a gravitational singularity in our universe if the cosmological constant is zero) rests on the assumption that Thomson scattering is the most efficient process for thermalization, which is not true when the plasma nature of the universe is taken into consideration (In highly magnetized plasmas other processes such as inverse synchrotron absorption can be far more efficient, with such efficient absorption and re-emission, the amount of plasma needed to thermalize the cosmic microwave background can be orders of magnitude less than that needed to produce a singularity.)
> PC Does not show an infinite density and temperature at a finite time in the past (a singularity), as we have no reason to think that anything can obtain 'infinite density and temperature', and no-one has ever observed a singularity in nature.
> Most of the universe is made up of the same stuff we have empirical evidence for on Earth, ie, baryonic, leptonic, etc. Plasma effects can account for the rotation and structures of galaxies without the need to invoke DM to account for observations.


Which of these lists of assumptions sounds more woo? The first ones seem way too woo for my liking for what is considered a tenable scientific theory. The PC list just makes logical sense, the Big Bang list does not.

Guess what Zeuzz: In hindsight you are correct.Your "plasma cosmology" is not woo. It is merely a crackpot, nonscientific theory. So to please you have have changed the conclustion of this thread:

Just to remind everyone that the question that this thread was started with has been answered:
The "plasma cosmology" supported by Zeuzzz, BeAChooser and others is definitely a nonscientific, crackpot theory (not woo).

The scientific theory of Plasma Cosmology is that of Hannes Olof Gösta Alfvén. This was expanded upon by Anthony Peratt, especially in the area of galaxy formation.

But the "plasma cosmology" that has emerged in this thread is not Plasma Cosmology and is not a scientific theory. Since it's proponents claim that it is a scientific theory that makes it crackpottery.

The definition of "plasma cosmology"is that it is a collection of scientific theories (not one consistent scientific theory) with a common thread. This thread seems to be that the theory either emphasizes the contribution of plasma in the universe or is a steady state cosmological theory.


This collection allows the addition of any new theory that matches the criteria regardless of consistency with existing theories in the collection. Thus the collection allows:

• Multiple inconsistent theories on cosmological redshift.
• Multiple inconsistent theories on the cosmic microwave background.
• Multiple inconsistent theories on the structure of the universe.
• Multiple inconsistent theories on stellar formation.
• Multiple inconsistent theories on anything else that is contained in "plasma cosmology"

The PC collection includes:

• Peratt's plasma model of galaxy formation.
• Lerner's model of element formation in galaxies.
• Gallo et al. calculations of Galactic Rotation Described with Bulge+Disk Gravitational Models.
• Tired-light explanation of cosmological redshifts.
• Intrinsic redshifts from the ejection of quasars from bright galaxies.
• Other theories which may include the Electric Universe (e.g. electrically powered stars).
• Lerner's explanation of the CMB
• Peratt's explanation of the CMB, but it hasn't been introduced yet.
• Peratt's ideas on quasars/QSOs/radio galaxies/AGNs (only tangentially referenced).
• Various ideas on fractal scaling, up to ~tens of Mpc
• Something about 'force free filaments' (unclear whether this is a separate idea or an essential part of one or more of the above).
• Baryonic Cold Skeleton of the Universe (Kukushkin, Alexander B. and Rantsev-Kartinov, Valentin A.)
• Also the original Plasma Cosmology of Hannes Alfvén?
• All standard plasma theories.
• Electric Universe (see the latest posts).
• Iron Sun?
• etc. (I will add to this list as this thread progresses since no one really knows what theories are included)

There seems to be an emphasis on the extension of laboratory experiments in theory to large sizes via plasma scaling (ignoring the problems with this - see the Astrophysical application section). The observational evidence for this scaling has some gaps in it.


pc completely forgets about the laboratory experiments on gravity that can be scaled in theory without any problems to cosmic scales. The observational evidence for this scaling has some gaps in it.

 

[Ziggurat]

LCDM:

> The universe has an origin in time, an intial event of creation.
> Before this there was nothing. Which later exploded to form the Big Bang.

Well, no. The point is that we cannot know what existed prior to the big bang, not that nothing existed at all.

> Relies on Einstein's General Relativity.
> Relativity yields an infinite density and temperature at a finite time in the past (a singularity)

Correct. But rather at odds with how you characterize it in the following bit:

PC viewpoint on these assumptions:

> The universe does not have a definitive origin in time, but one is not entirely ruled out. An actualistic approach is taken (starting now and working backwards in time to increasingly ancient states), instead of the prophetic approach that started the Big Bang theory (starting with an event and trying to prove this event with recent observations)

The big bang theory is precisely the result of working backwards from observation (namely redshift expansion data). Now, I know you've objected to the accuracy of distance/velocity/redshift relationships, but even if they're wrong, the big bang is still a model which was arrived at by working backwards from the current state. Which makes this characterization a lie, regardless of the accuracy of the model itself. It's this sort of dishonesty which makes people not take you seriously.

> As we do not see matter and energy being created out of nothing today anywhere in the universe, this didn't happen in the past.

So how do you square this with the idea that the universe may not have a definite beginning? If you can't add energy, why are we not at thermodynamic equilibrium? Or do you think it's fine to violate the 2nd law, as long as you don't violate the 1st?

> Relativity is used in various models in PC where it is needed to be accounted for

In other words, you ignore it if it doesn't give the answers you want.

> Most of the universe is made up of the same stuff we have empirical evidence for on Earth, ie, baryonic, leptonic, etc. Plasma effects can account for the rotation and structures of galaxies without the need to invoke DM to account for observations.

We've been through the numbers on this already: rotation rates cannot be accounted for via plasma models. You were off by something like 20 orders of magnitude in the required magnetic field.

 

[Zeuzzz]

Guess what Zeuzz: In hindsight you are correct.Your "plasma cosmology" is not woo. It is merely a crackpot, nonscientific theory. So to please you have have changed the conclustion of this thread:

Just to remind everyone that the question that this thread was started with has been answered:
The "plasma cosmology" supported by Zeuzzz, BeAChooser and others is definitely a nonscientific, crackpot theory (not woo).

The scientific theory of Plasma Cosmology is that of Hannes Olof Gösta Alfvén. This was expanded upon by Anthony Peratt, especially in the area of galaxy formation.

But the "plasma cosmology" that has emerged in this thread is not Plasma Cosmology and is not a scientific theory. Since it's proponents claim that it is a scientific theory that makes it crackpottery.

The definition of "plasma cosmology"is that it is a collection of scientific theories (not one consistent scientific theory) with a common thread. This thread seems to be that the theory either emphasizes the contribution of plasma in the universe or is a steady state cosmological theory.


This collection allows the addition of any new theory that matches the criteria regardless of consistency with existing theories in the collection. Thus the collection allows:

• Multiple inconsistent theories on cosmological redshift.
• Multiple inconsistent theories on the cosmic microwave background.
• Multiple inconsistent theories on the structure of the universe.
• Multiple inconsistent theories on stellar formation.
• Multiple inconsistent theories on anything else that is contained in "plasma cosmology"

The PC collection includes:

• Peratt's plasma model of galaxy formation.
• Lerner's model of element formation in galaxies.
• Gallo et al. calculations of Galactic Rotation Described with Bulge+Disk Gravitational Models.
• Tired-light explanation of cosmological redshifts.
• Intrinsic redshifts from the ejection of quasars from bright galaxies.
• Other theories which may include the Electric Universe (e.g. electrically powered stars).
• Lerner's explanation of the CMB
• Peratt's explanation of the CMB, but it hasn't been introduced yet.
• Peratt's ideas on quasars/QSOs/radio galaxies/AGNs (only tangentially referenced).
• Various ideas on fractal scaling, up to ~tens of Mpc
• Something about 'force free filaments' (unclear whether this is a separate idea or an essential part of one or more of the above).
• Baryonic Cold Skeleton of the Universe (Kukushkin, Alexander B. and Rantsev-Kartinov, Valentin A.)
• Also the original Plasma Cosmology of Hannes Alfvén?
• All standard plasma theories.
• Electric Universe (see the latest posts).
• Iron Sun?
• etc. (I will add to this list as this thread progresses since no one really knows what theories are included)

There seems to be an emphasis on the extension of laboratory experiments in theory to large sizes via plasma scaling (ignoring the problems with this - see the Astrophysical application section). The observational evidence for this scaling has some gaps in it.


pc completely forgets about the laboratory experiments on gravity that can be scaled in theory without any problems to cosmic scales. The observational evidence for this scaling has some gaps in it.

So your going to ignore the many points I made in this post above (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3877199&postcount=860) that directly tells you what the problems with this list are, and instead simply change your conclusion from PC is woo to PC is now crackpot? Dare I ask you what reasoning you have for this conclusion? I clearly outlined which ones are PC and not, what the core concepts behind PC are, how a publication falls into the scope of PC by meeting the specific criteria (just like for publications written within the framework for other cosmologies), The difference between Alfvens old cosmology and the revised modern plasma cosmology, what the actualistic approach to cosmology is compared to the other approaches. You going to update your list, with some links (that I provided) or was it another Dark post?

 

[Reality Check]

I have corrected your list of LCDM concepts:


LCDM:

1. The universe has an origin in time, an initial event of creation.
2. We cannot say what was before this origin (yet). It could be nothing.
3. Einstein's General Relativity has a solution that describes the Big Bang. This solution yields an infinite density and temperature at a finite time in the past (a singularity). This suggests that GR is an approximation to another theory which does not produce singularities (they also occur in black hole solutions). Singularities may actually exist but it is just intuitively nice if they did not.
4. 22% of the matter in the universe is dark matter that does not emit light or interact strongly with normal baryonic matter.

Your list of plasma cosmology concepts:

1. The universe does not have a definitive origin in time, but one is not entirely ruled out. An actualistic approach is taken (starting now and working backwards in time to increasingly ancient states), instead of the prophetic approach that started the Big Bang theory (starting with an event and trying to prove this event with recent observations)
2. As we do not see matter and energy being created out of nothing today anywhere in the universe, this didn't happen in the past.
3. Relativity is used in various models in PC where it is needed to be accounted for and has experimental verification, but can not be used to prove the Big Bang as Hawkings model (that implies a gravitational singularity in our universe if the cosmological constant is zero) rests on the assumption that Thomson scattering is the most efficient process for thermalization, which is not true when the plasma nature of the universe is taken into consideration (In highly magnetized plasmas other processes such as inverse synchrotron absorption can be far more efficient, with such efficient absorption and re-emission, the amount of plasma needed to thermalize the cosmic microwave background can be orders of magnitude less than that needed to produce a singularity.)
4. PC Does not show an infinite density and temperature at a finite time in the past (a singularity), as we have no reason to think that anything can obtain 'infinite density and temperature', and no-one has ever observed a singularity in nature.
5. Most of the universe is made up of the same stuff we have empirical evidence for on Earth, ie, baryonic, leptonic, etc. Plasma effects can account for the rotation and structures of galaxies without the need to invoke DM to account for observations.

pc concept 1 is basically that an origin cannot be ruled out. This is strange since one of the criteria for selecting pc theories is that the theory be steady state. But maybe you have changed your mind again?
Historically the FLRW solution of GR did come first. This means that observations later confirmed it (but did not "prove" it).

pc concept 2 has can be removed since LCDM does not assume that there was nothing before the big bang.

pc concept 3: Where does Hawkings model come in the Big Bang model? BB does not use Hawkings model (if it is the one that I think that you are talking about which is the one about the state of the universe before the BB). Or is there another model?
Maybe the BB state of matter before the radiation decoupled from matter was a plasma (I am not sure but it seems likely). But what makes you think that it was "highly magnetized plasmas"? Can you give a few citations that state that the BB state of matter at that time was a highly magnetized plasma?

pc concept 4: To be more exact some of the many theories included in pc do not have a singularity. Other theories may show a singularity (nobody knows since there is no complete list). This is yes another possible inconsistency in the many theories included in "plasma cosmology"

pc concept 5: Plasma effects cannot account for rotation and structures of galaxies without the need to invoke DM to account for observations.
Dark matter exists. The evidence for it is conclusive (galactic velocity dispersion curves are just 1 piece of evidence) and we have even directly observed it.

Other evidence:

• The motion of galaxies in galactic clusters is explained by dark matter.
• Weak gravitational lensing observations show that galactic clusters have matter that is not visible.
• The Dwarf Spheroidal Galaxies in the Local Group have measured masses that are many times their visible masses.
• The details of the CMB are explained by the LCDM model.
• LCDM computer simulations match the large scale structure of the universe. However there may be a "plasma cosmology" computer simulation out there somewhere that gives as good a match.

P.S.
I just came across an interesting effect that is evidence for time in the universe when galaxies did not exist: the Lyman-alpha forest.
This allows us to measure the the frequency and density of clouds containing neutral hydrogen. It turns out that as you go back in time (longer distances) the amount of neutral hydrogen increases. This means that the amount of ionized hydrogen decreases. What ionizes neutral hydrogen? The light from galaxies ionizes neutral hydrogen. If galaxies have always been there then there would be no variation in the amount of neutral hydrogen. In fact there is a case for there being no neutral hydrogen in the universe.
Thus plasma cosmology needs to throw out all theories that allow galaxies to exist for ever (i.e. steady state theories).

 

[Complexity]

Woo.

 

[Reality Check]

So your going to ignore the many points I made in this post above (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3877199&postcount=860) that directly tells you what the problems with this list are, and instead simply change your conclusion from PC is woo to PC is now crackpot? Dare I ask you what reasoning you have for this conclusion? I clearly outlined which ones are PC and not, what the core concepts behind PC are, how a publication falls into the scope of PC by meeting the specific criteria (just like for publications written within the framework for other cosmologies), The difference between Alfvens old cosmology and the revised modern plasma cosmology, what the actualistic approach to cosmology is compared to the other approaches. You going to update your list, with some links (that I provided) or was it another Dark post?

Hi Zeuzzz, I ignored them because they are the same old collection of inconsistant theories that make "plasma cosmology" into a crackpot science.
You are merely confirming to everyone that "plasma cosmology" is a crackpot theory. Feel free to continue making "plasma cosmology" into an even more crackpot theory.

 

[leonAzul]

I have corrected your list of LCDM concepts:


LCDM:

1. The universe has an origin in time, an initial event of creation.
2. We cannot say what was before this origin (yet). It could be nothing.
3. Einstein's General Relativity has a solution that describes the Big Bang. This solution yields an infinite density and temperature at a finite time in the past (a singularity). This suggests that GR is an approximation to another theory which does not produce singularities (they also occur in black hole solutions). Singularities may actually exist but it is just intuitively nice if they did not.
4. 22% of the matter in the universe is dark matter that does not emit light or interact strongly with normal baryonic matter.

Your list of plasma cosmology concepts:

1. The universe does not have a definitive origin in time, but one is not entirely ruled out. An actualistic approach is taken (starting now and working backwards in time to increasingly ancient states), instead of the prophetic approach that started the Big Bang theory (starting with an event and trying to prove this event with recent observations)
2. As we do not see matter and energy being created out of nothing today anywhere in the universe, this didn't happen in the past.
3. Relativity is used in various models in PC where it is needed to be accounted for and has experimental verification, but can not be used to prove the Big Bang as Hawkings model (that implies a gravitational singularity in our universe if the cosmological constant is zero) rests on the assumption that Thomson scattering is the most efficient process for thermalization, which is not true when the plasma nature of the universe is taken into consideration (In highly magnetized plasmas other processes such as inverse synchrotron absorption can be far more efficient, with such efficient absorption and re-emission, the amount of plasma needed to thermalize the cosmic microwave background can be orders of magnitude less than that needed to produce a singularity.)
4. PC Does not show an infinite density and temperature at a finite time in the past (a singularity), as we have no reason to think that anything can obtain 'infinite density and temperature', and no-one has ever observed a singularity in nature.
5. Most of the universe is made up of the same stuff we have empirical evidence for on Earth, ie, baryonic, leptonic, etc. Plasma effects can account for the rotation and structures of galaxies without the need to invoke DM to account for observations.

pc concept 1 is basically that an origin cannot be ruled out. This is strange since one of the criteria for selecting pc theories is that the theory be steady state. But maybe you have changed your mind again?
Historically the FLRW solution of GR did come first. This means that observations later confirmed it (but did not "prove" it).

pc concept 2 has can be removed since LCDM does not assume that there was nothing before the big bang.

pc concept 3: Where does Hawkings model come in the Big Bang model? BB does not use Hawkings model (if it is the one that I think that you are talking about which is the one about the state of the universe before the BB). Or is there another model?
Maybe the BB state of matter before the radiation decoupled from matter was a plasma (I am not sure but it seems likely). But what makes you think that it was "highly magnetized plasmas"? Can you give a few citations that state that the BB state of matter at that time was a highly magnetized plasma?

pc concept 4: To be more exact some of the many theories included in pc do not have a singularity. Other theories may show a singularity (nobody knows since there is no complete list). This is yes another possible inconsistency in the many theories included in "plasma cosmology"

pc concept 5: Plasma effects cannot account for rotation and structures of galaxies without the need to invoke DM to account for observations.
Dark matter exists. The evidence for it is conclusive (galactic velocity dispersion curves are just 1 piece of evidence) and we have even directly observed it.

Other evidence:

• The motion of galaxies in galactic clusters is explained by dark matter.
• Weak gravitational lensing observations show that galactic clusters have matter that is not visible.
• The Dwarf Spheroidal Galaxies in the Local Group have measured masses that are many times their visible masses.
• The details of the CMB are explained by the LCDM model.
• LCDM computer simulations match the large scale structure of the universe. However there may be a "plasma cosmology" computer simulation out there somewhere that gives as good a match.

P.S.
I just came across an interesting effect that is evidence for time in the universe when galaxies did not exist: the Lyman-alpha forest.
This allows us to measure the the frequency and density of clouds containing neutral hydrogen. It turns out that as you go back in time (longer distances) the amount of neutral hydrogen increases. This means that the amount of ionized hydrogen decreases. What ionizes neutral hydrogen? The light from galaxies ionizes neutral hydrogen. If galaxies have always been there then there would be no variation in the amount of neutral hydrogen. In fact there is a case for there being no neutral hydrogen in the universe.
Thus plasma cosmology needs to throw out all theories that allow galaxies to exist for ever (i.e. steady state theories).

From the outset, the notion that Plasma Cosmology (PC) is an entire theory is fatally flawed. Yet your critique of it is subsequently flawed--for the very same reasons!

As a comparative naïf, I admit that I do not understand all of the maths--particularly since the way they are represented has changed so much since I was last educated (yet I am doing my best to get up to speed)

Yet I do recognize political foolishness when I see it. And "dark matter" looks like so much deus ex machina, when there is readily available matter in the plasma state to explain it. And a "Big Bang" sounds just too much like a justification for insemination from "The Big Guy From Above".

Rather than claiming that this force or that always trumps, why not examine the context? That would surely be more scientific.

ETA
I have stricken that about which I was mistaken; the subsequent post proves me wrong. Sorry.

 

[Reality Check]

Just to remind everyone that the question that this thread was started with has been answered:
The "plasma cosmology" supported by Zeuzzz, BeAChooser and others is definitely a nonscientific, crackpot theory (not woo).

The scientific theory of Plasma Cosmology is that of Hannes Olof Gösta Alfvén. This was expanded upon by Anthony Peratt, especially in the area of galaxy formation.

But the "plasma cosmology" that has emerged in this thread is not Plasma Cosmology and is not a scientific theory. Since it's proponents claim that it is a scientific theory that makes it crackpottery.

The definition of "plasma cosmology"is that it is a collection of scientific theories (not one consistent scientific theory) with a common thread. This thread seems to be that the theory either emphasizes the contribution of plasma in the universe or is a steady state cosmological theory.


This collection allows the addition of any new theory that matches the criteria regardless of consistency with existing theories in the collection. Thus the collection allows:

• Multiple inconsistent theories on cosmological redshift.
• Multiple inconsistent theories on the cosmic microwave background.
• Multiple inconsistent theories on the structure of the universe.
• Multiple inconsistent theories on stellar formation.
• Multiple inconsistent theories on anything else that is contained in "plasma cosmology"

The PC collection includes:

• Peratt's plasma model of galaxy formation (His 1986 papers I and II).
• Lerner's model of element formation in galaxies.
• Gallo et al. calculations of Galactic Rotation Described with Bulge+Disk Gravitational Models.
• Tired-light explanation of cosmological redshifts.
• Wolf Effect (non-cosmological redshifts).
• Coherent Raman Effect on incoherent light.
• Intrinsic redshifts from the ejection of quasars from bright galaxies. E.g. Halton Arp's The Origin of Companion Galaxies.
• Other theories which may include the Electric Universe ().
• Lerner's explanation of the CMB.
• Peratt's explanation of the CMB, but it hasn't been introduced yet.
• Peratt's ideas on quasars/QSOs/radio galaxies/AGNs (only tangentially referenced).
• Various ideas on fractal scaling, up to ~tens of Mpc
• Something about 'force free filaments' (unclear whether this is a separate idea or an essential part of one or more of the above). Lerner's paper.
• Baryonic Cold Skeleton of the Universe (Kukushkin, Alexander B. and Rantsev-Kartinov, Valentin A.)
• All standard plasma theories.
• Electric Universe e.g. electrically powered stars (see the earlier posts).
• The Van Allen Hypothesis—The Origin of the Magnetic Fields of the Planets and Stars
• etc. (I will add to this list as this thread progresses since no one really knows what theories are included)

There seems to be an emphasis on the extension of laboratory experiments in theory to large sizes via plasma scaling (ignoring the problems with this - see the Astrophysical application section). The observational evidence for this scaling has some gaps in it.

pc completely forgets about the laboratory experiments on gravity that can be scaled in theory without any problems to cosmic scales. The observational evidence for this scaling has some gaps in it

21 July: More theories and some links added by Zeuzz's request (but not all of the multiple links that he requested). Some of these are just ordinary physics but he is the expert on "plasma cosmology" and so I have added them.
My thanks to Zuezzz for continuing to confirm that plasma cosmology is a collection of inconsistent theories.

 

[Reality Check]

Yes, Plasma cosmology is a collection of scientific theories with a common thread, just like any other cosmology. In any cosmology publications are written with a common thread, ie, LCDM papers are written based on this model, not all become accepted, but can still be counted as contributions to the cosmology, as they may gain popularity in the future, or turn out correct. If we had a long thread discussing LCDM, no doubt things like Self-Interacting Dark Matter (SIDM) would be discussed, Lineweaver's work, any author that writes papers for the LCDM framework, even though much of it would not be by most considered part of the LCDM cosmology.

Just to emphasis the basic premise of plasma cosmology: Plasma cosmology is a collection of scientific theories with a common thread that allows mutally inconsistent theories, unlike any other cosmology.

LCDM is not every theory that is published in a cosmology journal. It is 2 theories: GR + cold dark matter. That is all.
There are alternative theories about gravity (e.g MOND) but none have as much evidence for them as GR.
There are alternative theories about the form of dark matter. These do not affect the LCDM model.

If you want plasma cosmology to become a scientific theory then you have to select a set of consistent theories from your collection.

I could work with this list, but whats the point? Should we create a long list of all the various theories developed in the framework of other cosmologies? even the inconsistent ones? And you can remove,
[*]Electric Universe +
[*]Iron Sun?, never seen either mentioned in a PC journal, and I don’t know what you mean by electric universe. And by the way, that’s probably the best way to define what is PC material, if it’s published in a PC journal.

Can you give a list of the journal devoted to plasma cosmology?

Or is this list like your definition of plasma cosmology: anything that publishes anything that looks like your conception of plasma cosmology?

 

[Zeuzzz]

Well, no. The point is that we cannot know what existed prior to the big bang, not that nothing existed at all.

The point is that we cannot know that god existed prior to the Big Bang and created it, not that he didn't exist at all.

Does that act as any more proof that god exists? Me thinks not.

The big bang theory is precisely the result of working backwards from observation (namely redshift expansion data). Now, I know you've objected to the accuracy of distance/velocity/redshift relationships, but even if they're wrong, the big bang is still a model which was arrived at by working backwards from the current state. Which makes this characterization a lie, regardless of the accuracy of the model itself. It's this sort of dishonesty which makes people not take you seriously.

But its a distance/velocity/redshift relationship that is based on very little. There are so many more possibilites that should be considered.

In other words, you ignore it if it doesn't give the answers you want.

No, Hawkins assumptions are additional to relativity.

We've been through the numbers on this already: rotation rates cannot be accounted for via plasma models. You were off by something like 20 orders of magnitude in the required magnetic field.

What calculation did you do? single attraction between two stars?

 

[Dancing David]

Hey Zeuzzz, have you answered DRD's questions yet or just here to drop a spam bomb?

 

[Zeuzzz]

Just to emphasis the basic premise of plasma cosmology: Plasma cosmology is a collection of scientific theories with a common thread that allows mutally inconsistent theories, unlike any other cosmology.

There are very few "mutually inconsistent theories" in there, the two separate explanations for Tired light, and a couple of others. I dont know which one is preffered, but could probably take a guess.

LCDM is not every theory that is published in a cosmology journal. It is 2 theories: GR + cold dark matter. That is all.

There are alternative theories about the form of dark matter. These do not affect the LCDM model.

Of course they could effect the LCDM model. You cant just generalize a theory down to two principles, you have to show how it can be applied in different situations, and provide evidence for that aswell, and you will find that when you do that you will run into various scientists having different explanations for many observations.

If a paper showed that Dark matter is not needed to explain rotation curves, you certainly do have a problem. Saying that "alternative theories about the form of dark matter [....] do not affect the LCDM model" is stupid. If they are correct then they certainly do.

If you want plasma cosmology to become a scientific theory then you have to select a set of consistent theories from your collection.

Its that easy is it? I could choose two core ideas with ease. Or we both need to re-define what we think is expected from a cosmological theory. This could be fun, we could get down to some of the core assumptions in modern cosmology.

Can you give a list of the journal devoted to plasma cosmology?

Yes. This list is excluding the various acadmeic books on plasma cosmology. Astrophysics and Space Science 227, Special issue dedicated to Professor Hannes Alfvén, IEEE Transctions on Plasma Science (including) Journal of Laser & Particle Beams, IEEE Special Issues in Honor of Alfvén, (Vol 14 No 6 (Dec 1986), Vol 17 No 2 (Apr 1989), 2nd Special Issue on Space and Cosmic Plasma, Vol 18 No 1 (Feb 1990) 3rd Special Issue on Space and Cosmic Plasma, The Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Plasma Cosmology, Vol 20 No 6 (Dec 1992) 4th Special Issue on Space and Cosmic Plasma Plasma experiments in the laboratory and in space, Vol 28 No 6 (Dec 2000), 5th Special Issue on Space and Cosmic Plasma (Space Weather), Vol 31 No 6 (Dec 2004) 6th Special Issue on Space and Cosmic Plasma, v33 No 5, Vol 35 No 4 Part 1 (Aug 2007), 7th Special Issue on Space and Cosmic Plasma.

Or is this list like your definition of plasma cosmology: anything that publishes anything that looks like your conception of plasma cosmology?

No, it makes sense really, anything published in a plasma cosmolgy journal is a plasma cosmolgy paper, or it wouldn't be accepted. No erroneous reconnection, no infinitely conducting plasma, no frozen in field lines, no pseudoplasma, no exclusively homogeneous plasma models, no incomplete magnetic field line diagrams, no mention of magnetic fields without the subsequent currents that produce them, and no hypothetical new physics.

 

[Zeuzzz]

Hey Zeuzzz, have you answered DRD's questions yet or just here to drop a spam bomb?

Yes I started answering Nereids questions, but she started to disagree with my answers, which I responded to, and whilst I was talking about that I got accused of not answering the original questions any more. So I answered a couple more, then got another accusation. Its a viscious cycle.

I am getting through them, but theres over fifty, and its much quicker to respond to current comments that keep dragging up old ones. I'm just lazy.

 

[Reality Check]

There are very few "mutually inconsistent theories" in there, the two separate explanations for Tired light, and a couple of others. I dont know which one is preffered, but could probably take a guess.

Of course they could effect the LCDM model. You cant just generalize a theory down to two principles, you have to show how it can be applied in different situations, and provide evidence for that aswell, and you will find that when you do that you will run into various scientists having different explanations for many observations.

The LCDM model is defined as GR + cold dark matter (not "generalised down to"). L = Lambda which is the GR part. CDM = Cold Dark Matter.

If a paper showed that Dark matter is not needed to explain rotation curves, you certainly do have a problem. Saying that "alternative theories about the form of dark matter [....] do not affect the LCDM model" is stupid. If they are correct then they certainly do.

Your are correct. If a paper can show that dark matter is not needed to:

1. explain rotation curves.
2. explain orbits of galaxies in galactic clusters.
3. explain the actual observation of dark matter.
4. explain the excess mass in the dwartf galaxies in our Local group.

then LCDM is invalid. If dark matter is needed to explain any of the observations then LCDM is still vaild. The alternative theories are mostly about the nature of dark matter, e.g. WIMPS vs MACHOs. Some look at dark matter with different properties than the normal dark matter. However the LCDM model is only concerned with cold dark matter.

Its that easy is it? I could choose two core ideas with ease. Or we both need to re-define what we think is expected from a cosmological theory. This could be fun, we could get down to some of the core assumptions in modern cosmology.

It would be interesting to see you redefine "plasma cosmology" once again.

Yes. This list is excluding the various acadmeic books on plasma cosmology. Astrophysics and Space Science 227, Special issue dedicated to Professor Hannes Alfvén, IEEE Transctions on Plasma Science (including) Journal of Laser & Particle Beams, IEEE Special Issues in Honor of Alfvén, (Vol 14 No 6 (Dec 1986), Vol 17 No 2 (Apr 1989), 2nd Special Issue on Space and Cosmic Plasma, Vol 18 No 1 (Feb 1990) 3rd Special Issue on Space and Cosmic Plasma, The Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Plasma Cosmology, Vol 20 No 6 (Dec 1992) 4th Special Issue on Space and Cosmic Plasma Plasma experiments in the laboratory and in space, Vol 28 No 6 (Dec 2000), 5th Special Issue on Space and Cosmic Plasma (Space Weather), Vol 31 No 6 (Dec 2004) 6th Special Issue on Space and Cosmic Plasma, v33 No 5, Vol 35 No 4 Part 1 (Aug 2007), 7th Special Issue on Space and Cosmic Plasma.

No, it makes sense really, anything published in a plasma cosmolgy journal is a plasma cosmolgy paper, or it wouldn't be accepted. No erroneous reconnection, no infinitely conducting plasma, no frozen in field lines, no pseudoplasma, no exclusively homogeneous plasma models, no incomplete magnetic field line diagrams, no mention of magnetic fields without the subsequent currents that produce them, and no hypothetical new physics.

So you do not mean PC journals. You mean various journals that have issues which concentrate on plasma cosmology.

Can you give an example of an actual plasma cosmology journal, i.e. one that has only published papers on plasma cosmology? My guess is that there is not such journal. At least I cannot find one using Google but you should have a better idea.

You should be careful about the old publications. Astronomy has advanced so much in the last decade that you take care about older publications and their continued validity.

ETA: Some special issues are more peer reviewed than others so you need to check whether they contain new papers or reprints of old papers.

 

[Ziggurat]

What calculation did you do? single attraction between two stars?

No. I did the calculation for the acceleration of the sun towards the galactic center. Using values for the galactic magnetic field that I think you linked to, the numbers are off by about 20 orders of magnitude. Not a factor of 20, but of 10²⁰.

 

[tusenfem]

Yes. This list is excluding the various acadmeic books on plasma cosmology. Astrophysics and Space Science 227, Special issue dedicated to Professor Hannes Alfvén, IEEE Transctions on Plasma Science (including) Journal of Laser & Particle Beams, IEEE Special Issues in Honor of Alfvén, (Vol 14 No 6 (Dec 1986), Vol 17 No 2 (Apr 1989), 2nd Special Issue on Space and Cosmic Plasma, Vol 18 No 1 (Feb 1990) 3rd Special Issue on Space and Cosmic Plasma, The Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Plasma Cosmology, Vol 20 No 6 (Dec 1992) 4th Special Issue on Space and Cosmic Plasma Plasma experiments in the laboratory and in space, Vol 28 No 6 (Dec 2000), 5th Special Issue on Space and Cosmic Plasma (Space Weather), Vol 31 No 6 (Dec 2004) 6th Special Issue on Space and Cosmic Plasma, v33 No 5, Vol 35 No 4 Part 1 (Aug 2007), 7th Special Issue on Space and Cosmic Plasma.


No, it makes sense really, anything published in a plasma cosmolgy journal is a plasma cosmolgy paper, or it wouldn't be accepted. No erroneous reconnection, no infinitely conducting plasma, no frozen in field lines, no pseudoplasma, no exclusively homogeneous plasma models, no incomplete magnetic field line diagrams, no mention of magnetic fields without the subsequent currents that produce them, and no hypothetical new physics.

You really need to get up to date with modern day space plasma physcis, my dear Zeuzzz, there is definitely no assumption of homogenous plasmas, you obviously do not understand the purpose of drawn magnetic field lines, plasmas are basically NEVER infinitely conducting, but highly conducting, which means that to a certain degree (i.e. on time scales smaller than the diffusion time) the magnetic field may be considered frozen into the plasma, and yes, space plasma physics does talk about electric currents. As an example, my latest (accepted by peer reviewed journal of geophysics research) paper is called: Magnetotail Dipolarization and Associated Current Systems Observed by Cluster and DoubleStar.

get out of the plasma physical middle ages please!

 

[Reality Check]

But its a distance/velocity/redshift relationship that is based on very little. There are so many more possibilites that should be considered.

FYI Zeuzzz: It is not based on "very little". It is based on a large and growing body of measurments. Determining the Hubble constant and the list of independent methods of determining distance to galaxies:
Cosmic distance ladder with a good diagram describing the various ranges in which techniques apply.

If you ignore the WMAP data then Hubble's constant is 72 ± 8 km/s/Mpc (obtained in 2001 by using NASA's Hubble Space Telescope).
The WMAP data gives a value of 70.1 ± 1.3 km/s/Mpc.

ETA: This page gives a list of 25 methods of determining distances (Hubble's law is the 26th) to stars and galaxies: The ABC's of Distances

My new personal favourite evidence for an expanding (or at least changing) universe is the Lyman-alpha forest. This shows that the density of neutral hydrogen increases as you go back in time. It is light from galaxies that ionizes neutral hydrogen. This demonstrates that galaxies started to ionize neutral hydrogen at a certain point in time and have continued to do so until today (reducing the density of neutral hydrogen).
It is almost as if galaxies just came into existence and stated to ionize hydrogen!

 

[Dancing David]

Yes I started answering Nereids questions, but she started to disagree with my answers, which I responded to, and whilst I was talking about that I got accused of not answering the original questions any more. So I answered a couple more, then got another accusation. Its a viscious cycle.

I am getting through them, but theres over fifty, and its much quicker to respond to current comments that keep dragging up old ones. I'm just lazy.

Thanks , I doubt you are lazy. Perhaps it is a matter of what DRD calls 'the nature of acceptable evidence' that leads you to such frustration. If DRD is Neried then there is a long history of study and discussion in certain areas. So it may be that they have actualy studied this rather extensively and have asked questions that you have not considered.