Plasma Cosmology - Woo or not

tusenfem said:
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!
Click to expand...

Hello Tusenfem. Go get 'em.
 
Last edited:
Zeuzzz said:
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.
Click to expand...
Well I guess we all know now, don't we?

Following your logic, those >fifty questions (or some subset) could simply be repeated every time you post to this thread, couldn't they? That would make them "current comments", wouldn't it? And it should be pretty easy to do, simply copy and paste from the posts, which are all conveniently located in a small number of summary posts ...

But maybe it's worth taking a little time to understand how this "viscious [sic] cycle" started?

Here's one attempt: it all began when Z refused to provide a succinct summary of PC; when he finally got around to it, the conclusion "PC is the very definition of woo" became immediately obvious (as I noted, not too long ago). Had the succinct definition been given on page 1 of this thread (as RC requested), by page 2 we'd have been pretty much done ... or at least getting deep into a discussion of the many, mutually inconsistent PC mechanisms to explain the Hubble relationship.

Of course, as any reader of this thread can quickly verify, Z's posting behaviour was anything but helpful, in terms of addressing the questions in the OP ... lengthy post followed by lengthy post and more and more, with nary a concern about the content of any response to such posts.

In short, the burden you now have Z is one entirely of your own making.
 
...

In a way, the uncritical acceptance of Arpian 'intrinsic redshifts' for quasars is a rather nice summary of PC as a whole: not only are there no papers by any of the founders of PC on the existence of such an effect (recall that PC proponents are very big on 'predictions'), not only are there no plasma-based mechanisms for such an effect, but PC proponents are quite unconcerned about lensed quasars, which provide about as clear an observation-based case as you could ask for that quasars are at distances consistent with their (Hubble relationship) redshifts (example)!

Saying this another way: uncritical acceptance of inconsistencies, of many kinds and at many levels (and the extreme reluctance to even acknowledge that any inconsistencies exist), shows that whatever PC is, it is not a science or based on science....
I think I can agree with what you have said with the exception of the one item that I have bolded. I would be most interested to see any experimentally verified prediction, any rigorously derived non-trivial prediction whatever, (not including some of the plasma physics work of Alfven himself) from the PC or EU (Electrical Universe) contingent. The next one that I see will be the first one.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
DrRocket said:
[ QUOTE ]...

In a way, the uncritical acceptance of Arpian 'intrinsic redshifts' for quasars is a rather nice summary of PC as a whole: not only are there no papers by any of the founders of PC on the existence of such an effect (recall that PC proponents are very big on 'predictions'), not only are there no plasma-based mechanisms for such an effect, but PC proponents are quite unconcerned about lensed quasars, which provide about as clear an observation-based case as you could ask for that quasars are at distances consistent with their (Hubble relationship) redshifts (example)!

Saying this another way: uncritical acceptance of inconsistencies, of many kinds and at many levels (and the extreme reluctance to even acknowledge that any inconsistencies exist), shows that whatever PC is, it is not a science or based on science....[ /QUOTE ]

I think I can agree with what you have said with the exception of the one item that I have bolded. I would be most interested to see any experimentally verified prediction, any rigorously derived non-trivial prediction whatever, (not including some of the plasma physics work of Alfven himself) from the PC or EU (Electrical Universe) contingent. The next one that I see will be the first one.
Click to expand...
Sorry, the post of mine you are quoting is/was ambiguous.

What I meant was that PC proponents make a huge song and dance about the need for predictions, and heap buckets of venom on those who develop models after the observations have been made.

I fully agree with you that, in this regard, their stance is hypocritical, cynical, ignorant, deluded, inconsistent, etc, etc, etc ... or any combo of any of these.

I meant that despite the strong rhetoric regarding the primacy of predictions, PC proponents cannot point to a single published paper with a prediction of the Arpian intrinsic redshifts (based on plasma physics), not to mention any postdictions either.
 
The Lyman-alpha forest

The forest is used to measure the amount of neutral hydrogen between us and distant galaxies and quasars. These measurements show that the amount increases as we look back in time. This is a really, really big problem for all steady state universe theories since they want the universe to look the same as we look back in time. They especially do not want the actual composition of matter in the universe (ionized vs neutral hydrogen) to change.

So now we know that there was a large amount of neutral hydrogen in the early universe and that this amount decreased.
What causes neutral hydrogen to decrease (become ionized)? Light ionizes hydrogen.
Where does light come? Galaxies.

So why did galaxies start to ionize neutral hydrogen at a certain point in the universe's history and not before? I can think of 2 reasons:
  1. They did not exist before then.
  2. There was a change in the fundemental laws of physics that allowed hydrogen to be ionized.
What is the pc explanation for this?
 
Zeuzzz said:
> 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.
Click to expand...

You don't believe in black holes either?
 
Last edited:
Reality Check said:
The forest is used to measure the amount of neutral hydrogen between us and distant galaxies and quasars. These measurements show that the amount increases as we look back in time. This is a really, really big problem for all steady state universe theories since they want the universe to look the same as we look back in time. They especially do not want the actual composition of matter in the universe (ionized vs neutral hydrogen) to change.

So now we know that there was a large amount of neutral hydrogen in the early universe and that this amount decreased.
What causes neutral hydrogen to decrease (become ionized)? Light ionizes hydrogen.
Where does light come? Galaxies.

So why did galaxies start to ionize neutral hydrogen at a certain point in the universe's history and not before? I can think of 2 reasons:
  1. They did not exist before then.
  2. There was a change in the fundemental laws of physics that allowed hydrogen to be ionized.
What is the pc explanation for this?
Click to expand...


Lyman-alpha absorption saturates when neutral H fractions which are very small, about one part in 104. Not a huge problem, but certainly a limiting factor, especially on z>6 quasars.

Infact the Lyman forest can be explained equally sufficiently by the most used PC redshift model, the Coherent Raman Emission of Incoherent Light. The very existance of the Lyman forest is infact strong evidcne for CREIL, and often is one of the first pieces of data cited when evidencing CREIL.

http://arxiv.org/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0404/0404207.pdf

Part IV: Coherent Raman Emission of Incoherent Light (CREIL)

Moret-Bailly has used the tensors of polarization and Raman scattering to derive a coherent radiation transfer function for broadband light. In his published works based on laser experiments, he points out “Impulsive Stimulated Raman Scattering” (ISRS) has been studied in laboratories since the 1960’s. ISRS effects are observed when differential lasers are trained on tubes containin g a gas in the presence of an electric field. In the resulting spectra, the higher frequency is redshifted and the lower frequency is blue shifted. [....]

Edited by jmercer: 
Removed for compliance with Rule 4 - too much text.
Click to expand...
You should read the links i provided earlier on this;

• Coherent Raman Effect on incoherent light (CREIL)




continuing from that publication:

Evidence of CREIL 1: The Paradoxical Lyman Forest

The Lyman Forest was first theorized by Gunn & Peterson, Scheuer and Shklovski in 1965. In theory, the intergalactic space is occupied by neutral hydrogen commoving with the expansion of the universe. As light from distance sources passes through these clouds, the Lyman UV peak (@1215.67 Å) absorbs and attenuates these light sources. As the relative motion of the intervening clouds of hydrogen decrease, the Lyman absorption lines move through this spectrum, creating a ‘picket fence’ of lines greatly attenuating the spectrum between the rest frame of the redshifted source and our telescopes.

Edited by jmercer: 
Removed for compliance with Rule 4 - too much text.
[....]
Click to expand...
And in addition to the CREIL explanation Brynjolfsson has an explanation for the Lyman forests, he thinks that it could be explained by... i'll let him explain. Not sure what I think yet, only just found it. Its based on the plasma redshift theory, which i'm still not sure of personally.

http://astroneu.com/new-evidence/

If there was some neutral H near us, moving at about our speed, we would see its Lyman Alpha absorption at a wavelength in the spectrum which is close to what it would be on Earth, in the UV part of the spectrum at 0.1216 um (1216 Angstrom). A photon of light with this wavelength has exactly the energy required to get the electron in an H atom from the lowest energy level to the one above, which is an energy difference of 13.6 electron volts. Two pages with good explanations of this are:

http://astron.berkeley.edu/~jcohn/lya.html
http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/astro/ research/cosmology.htm

Edited by jmercer: 
Removed for compliance with Rule 4 - too much text.
[....]
Click to expand...

Please read Rule 4 (and footnotes) regarding quoted text; we suggest no more than a paragraph and a link be presented. I have removed the excess text to put this post back into compliance.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: jmercer
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Tubbythin said:
You don't believe in black holes either?
Click to expand...


Prove that a singularity can exist in nature, not in mathmatical terms, and I'll fully beleive in black holes. They just stricke me as a mathematical extrapolation too far.

It also depends whether your speaking about mini, midi, or maxi black holes. I think that black hole candidates, like Cyg X-1 and A0620-00, that have been proposed (along with >50 more) to be black holes are actually binaries with large accretion disks (some 5 solar masses), and I have reservations over 'super massive' ones as burning H to Fe is almost as efficient lamp as accretion, giving a <1% of the rest energy, and this is also implied by their spectra which show high metal enrichment compared with solar abundances.
 
Zeuzzz said:
Lyman-alpha absorption saturates when neutral H fractions which are very small, about one part in 104. Not a huge problem, but certainly a limiting factor, especially on z>6 quasars.

Infact the Lyman forest can be explained equally sufficiently by the most used PC redshift model, the Coherent Raman Emission of Incoherent Light. The very existance of the Lyman forest is infact strong evidcne for CREIL, and often is one of the first pieces of data cited when evidencing CREIL.

http://arxiv.org/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0404/0404207.pdf

You should read the links i provided earlier on this;

• Coherent Raman Effect on incoherent light (CREIL)


continuing from that publication:

And in addition to the CREIL explanation Brynjolfsson has an explanation for the Lyman forests, he thinks that it could be explained by... i'll let him explain. Not sure what I think yet, only just found it. Its based on the plasma redshift theory, which i'm still not sure of personally.

http://astroneu.com/new-evidence/
Click to expand...
You should realize by now that no one ever reads all of the links that you spam the forum with. It is just too much work especially since pc includes dozens of theories.

Thanks for reminding me of Coherent Raman Effect on incoherent light.

It looks like we can now throw away all the other pc theories about redshifts that do not explain the Layman-alpha forest, e.g. Arp's intrinsic redshifts, Lerner's redshift, etc.
 
Zeuzzz said:
Prove that a singularity can exist in nature, not in mathmatical terms, and I'll fully beleive in black holes. They just stricke me as a mathematical extrapolation too far.
Click to expand...

If you get a large mass in a small enough region of space, it will form an event horizon. What exactly happens inside that event horizon (whether ir collapses to a true singularity or just something super-small) is actually irrelevant to the outside. The event horizon itself is not a singularity (well, it can be a coordinate singularity, but that's meaningless), and I think it's safe to call a massive object surrounded by an event horizon a "black hole" regardless of what's inside. So since singularities are what's bothering you, ignore the singularity: do you believe that black holes defined by the presence of an event horizon probably exist?
 
Reality Check said:
You should realize by now that no one ever reads all of the links that you spam the forum with. It is just too much work especially since pc includes dozens of theories.

Thanks for reminding me of Coherent Raman Effect on incoherent light.

It looks like we can now throw away all the other pc theories about redshifts that do not explain the Layman-alpha forest, e.g. Arp's intrinsic redshifts, Lerner's redshift, etc.
Click to expand...


Lerners redshifts? Please elaborate, I dont think that Lerner is a staunch Arp fan, and am unaware of any Lerner redshift theory. CREIL can actually account for Arps work.

And I like the way that posting alot of information about PC models equates to just spamming. Genius. :)

* Halton Arp's proposal of Machian mass of "young" matter, such as in quasars ejected from galaxies, producing longer wavelength resonance lines.
* CREIL (Coherent Raman Effects on Incoherent Light) from Jacques Moret-Baily.

I think the only two theories which are likely to be valid are Ari Brynjolfsson's and mine. If these theories work as well as their originators intend, they could explain:

* The redshift in space near quasars and at least some kinds of galaxy.
* The heating and acceleration of the solar corona. (No-one else has a plausible theory for this spectacular phenomena.)
* The observed cosmological redshift - the minimum redshift value of distant objects according to the Hubble "constant".
* Excess redshift in hot stars (Halton Arp's K-effect - see Ari Brynjolfsson's paper 5.6.4).
Click to expand...
 
Zeuzzz said:
Prove that a singularity can exist in nature, not in mathmatical terms, and I'll fully beleive in black holes. They just stricke me as a mathematical extrapolation too far.

It also depends whether your speaking about mini, midi, or maxi black holes. I think that black hole candidates, like Cyg X-1 and A0620-00, that have been proposed (along with >50 more) to be black holes are actually binaries with large accretion disks (some 5 solar masses), and I have reservations over 'super massive' ones as burning H to Fe is almost as efficient lamp as accretion, giving a <1% of the rest energy, and this is also implied by their spectra which show high metal enrichment compared with solar abundances.
Click to expand...
Ziggurat has already pointed out the black holes do not need a singularity.

The stellar black hole candidates are actually binary systems with large accretion disks. However we only see one star in optical frequencies (i.e. it is a normal star). The other star is only visible in x-rays and is invisible in optical frequencies. This makes it quite unique as far as stars go - there are plenty of x-ray emitting stars but they also emit in optical frequencies. So we need an object that produces x-rays from accretion disks but is not visible. Black holes fit the criteria. Neutron stars also fit the criteria but can be distinguished through their other properties (mass, differential rotation, possible magnetic field and localized explosions).

For an interesting black hole candidate have a look at the heaviest one that we have found so far (>14 solar masses): GRS 1915+105

As for supermassive black holes, I suggest that you look up Sagittarius A* and think about what a 3.7 million solar mass "star" burining H to Fe would look like (hint: it will be a lot bigger than the 45 AU maximum size and 1 AU probable size of Sagittarius A*).
 
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:
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.
 
Reality Check said:
The stellar black hole candidates are actually binary systems with large accretion disks. However we only see one star in optical frequencies (i.e. it is a normal star). The other star is only visible in x-rays and is invisible in optical frequencies. This makes it quite unique as far as stars go - there are plenty of x-ray emitting stars but they also emit in optical frequencies. So we need an object that produces x-rays from accretion disks but is not visible. Black holes fit the criteria. Neutron stars also fit the criteria but can be distinguished through their other properties (mass, differential rotation, possible magnetic field and localized explosions).
Click to expand...


To me they all look like neutron stars surrounded by massive accretion disks of some 5-7 solar masses, and because of their often hard spectra (up to the gamma range), highly structured fluctuating light curves, occasional jet formation and super eddington behaviour, and because their other properties are nearly indistinguishable from currently known neutron star binaries. They just fill the gap between the low-mass and high-mass compact binary systems.



As for supermassive black holes, I suggest that you look up Sagittarius A* and think about what a 3.7 million solar mass "star" burining H to Fe would look like (hint: it will be a lot bigger than the 45 AU maximum size and 1 AU probable size of Sagittarius A*).
Click to expand...


I have numerous more problems with 'super massive black holes'. As I said before, burning H to Fe is almost as efficient lamp as accretion, giving a <1% of the rest energy, and this is also implied by their spectra which show high metal enrichment compared with solar abundances. They actually show >102 fold metal enrichment compared to solar abundances. There is also still a missing mass problem, some ~106.5 solar masses has been detected, but theories (based on quasars) predict 1010.5, hardly an insignificant difference. And i also think that the universality of the jet phenomenon suggests a universal engine which we know is a fast rotating magnet in the cases of newly formed stars, binary neutron stars, and young binary white dwarfs.
 
Last edited:
Zeuzzz said:
To me they all look like neutron stars surrounded by massive accretion disks of some 5-7 solar masses, and because of their often hard spectra (up to the gamma range), highly structured fluctuating light curves, occasional jet formation and super eddington behaviour, and because their other properties are nearly indistinguishable from currently known neutron star binaries. They just fill the gap between the low-mass and high-mass compact binary systems.
Click to expand...
They do not look like neutron stars to astronomers in general. They are definitely not "neutron star binaries" as in 2 neutron stars but maybe you mean a binary system with a neutron star.
Hard spectra (up to the gamma range), highly structured fluctuating light curves, occasional jet formation and super eddington behaviour are all properties of an accretion disk being heated up.
There are several candidates with masses that are too high for a neutron star. There are missing magnetic fields (e.g. pulsars are never considered to be black hole candidates). The candidates do not exhibit the localized explosions (starquakes and thermonuclear explosions due to impacts). Most telling is the lack of differential rotation.
There is a small chance that a few of the candidates are neutron stars but they would have to be very unusual neutron stars that act very much like black holes.

Zeuzzz said:
I have numerous more problems with 'super massive black holes'. As I said before, burning H to Fe is almost as efficient lamp as accretion, giving a <1% of the rest energy, and this is also implied by their spectra which show high metal enrichment compared with solar abundances. They actually show >102 fold metal enrichment compared to solar abundances. There is also still a missing mass problem, some ~106.5 solar masses has been detected, but theories (based on quasars) predict 1010.5, hardly an insignificant difference. And i also think that the universality of the jet phenomenon suggests a universal engine which we know is a fast rotating magnet in the cases of newly formed stars, binary neutron stars, and young binary white dwarfs.
Click to expand...
The 102 fold metal enrichment compared to solar abundances is in fact evidence that the energy is coming from an accretion disk not a star.
I would think that H to Fe burining would be something that is quite visible. It is in normal stars. I wonder why black hole candidates do not have the spectrums like normal stars. Maybe they are not normal stars.
I have no idea what this missing mass problem is. Citations?
However there is no missing mass in the supermassive black hole that is known to exist in the center of the Milky Way (Sagittarius A*).
The universality of the jet phenomenon just needs a spinning energy source, e.g a rotating magnetic field or an accretion disk powered by a black hole.
 
Zeuzzz said:
Translation: When a viable PC theory is presented to explain the data instead of addressing this I pick a publication related to PC that is inconsistent with it and dismiss the lot without addressing the theory being discussed.

Dare I ask which theory you deem inconsistent now?

Do you want to choose two theories like other cosmologies (as you said LCDM is relativity and DM) and limit my parameters? most of those things in your list are perfectly consistent. The cmb from early stellar evolution in the 4He synthesis which is thermalized and isotropized by the magnetically confined plasma filaments we have detected in the intergalactic medium, and 'because the amount of energy released in producing the observed amount of 4He is the same as the amount of energy in the CMB', and is part of Lerners model (ref: http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1896v1.pdf). Would be one.

What would you advise for my second, I could choose plenty, but which one would meet the criteria to brand PC a cosmology by your standards? Do I have to explain the Big Bang? the anisotropy of the cosmic gamma-ray background? :)
Click to expand...


It was a general comment but I would say that
  • a couple of the 3 or 4 (or more now Zeuzzz?) theories on cosmological redshift are inconsistent.
  • Peratt's plasma model of galaxy formation (aside from being debunked) does not quite match with Gallo's model which does not include Peratt galactic with and billion? light year long plsama filaments and yet produces the observed rotation curves.
  • Two or 3 (or more now Zeuzzz?) different explantions of the CMB.
  • There are no explicit cosmological theories mentioned, e.g. Quasi-Steady State Theory, which is surprising but if I just include all non Big Bang theories then they will be inconsistant.
If you want to redfine plasma cosmology yet again then free free to do so.

As for Lerner's model: It needs to be updated to look at more that the simple CMB parameters that it (and just about any other cosmological model) can fit. Strangely enough, science has advanced in the last few years and the CMB now has an accurate power spectrum. The Lambda-CDM model can match this power spectrum.
How is Lerner doing? He seems to be a bit silent on the fit of his model to the latest WMAP data. But he knows about thid data as shown in the above link.
 
Last edited:
Reality Check said:
You should realize by now that no one ever reads all of the links that you spam the forum with. It is just too much work especially since pc includes dozens of theories.
Click to expand...

You don't know what anybody but yourself does. One huge difference between Plasma proponents here, and most "skeptics", is the "crackpots" supply a huge amount of science and publications, allowing for investigation and study of stuff, while most of the critics offer only insults and derision. While I don't have the time or training to either read or understand most of the highly technical papers, I find it far more interesting to read them than read a boring stream of insulting responses, devoid of any science or rational thought.

Zeuzzz said:
And I like the way that posting a lot of information about PC models equates to just spamming. Genius. :)
Click to expand...

I advise use of the ignore feature, or just scrolling past obvious screed and trolling.

Reality Check said:
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).
Click to expand...

Nobody needs you to remind us of anything, much less your conclusions. :wackylaugh:

While I tend to avoid arguements online, I enjoy reading the never ending debate about plasma and related issues. I keep learning new stuff.

Considering the revolutionary developments currently in progress, especially regarding plasmas, electromagnetism, and how the Universe runs, it is all good.
 
Originally Posted by goodguyseatpie View Post
I suppose you have a post-hoc rationalization for the high-z Type Ia SN data (check it out a real refereed astronomy journal publication) that not only confirms many of the geometrical models of CDM BB cosmology, but of one of the novel and original predictions of general relativity: cosmic acceleration.

~ggep~
Click to expand...

Zeuzzz said:
Thanks, I'll check it out tomorrow. And Sn Ia data has an alternative explanation in PC; see http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/physics/pdf/0702/0702075v1.pdf for a start.
Click to expand...

Replying to post from the Young Galaxies thread. This thread is more appropriate now.

Zuezzz,
I am not really trying to be condescending, but you're revealing that you don't have a grasp of modern cosmology, beyond perhaps that which can be gleaned from the internet and popular level books. The accelerating expansion predictions of GR and subsequent confirmation by Kirshner, et al is a very well known result by now (a decade later). Your reply implies that you haven't read that research. Fine. But to put forward a paper that has to do with a very nearby supernova (1987A) and its morphology as an alternative explanation for observations surrounding high-z Type Ia supernovae demonstrates that you may be grasping at straws.

It may have been covered in this thread (though I haven't read all of it, I'll admit), but can I ask: how did you come to be interested in plasma cosmology, quantized redshifts, etc? (follow up: do you genuinely have confidence that PC is more successful than modern cosmology because you have deeply examined the merits of both, or do you have an idealogical reason for preferring PC?) Also: what training do you have in modern astrophysics? I do not mean these to be condescending questions, and I will not make negative remarks about your answers. They will just help me frame the context of how I read your posts (and at what level I can best reply in future posts)

~ggep~
 
robinson said:
You don't know what anybody but yourself does. One huge difference between Plasma proponents here, and most "skeptics", is the "crackpots" supply a huge amount of science and publications, allowing for investigation and study of stuff, while most of the critics offer only insults and derision. While I don't have the time or training to either read or understand most of the highly technical papers, I find it far more interesting to read them than read a boring stream of insulting responses, devoid of any science or rational thought.

I advise use of the ignore feature, or just scrolling past obvious screed and trolling.

Nobody needs you to remind us of anything, much less your conclusions. :wackylaugh:

While I tend to avoid arguements online, I enjoy reading the never ending debate about plasma and related issues. I keep learning new stuff.

Considering the revolutionary developments currently in progress, especially regarding plasmas, electromagnetism, and how the Universe runs, it is all good.
Click to expand...
Other people have commented on Zeuzzz's habit of overwhelming the threads with long posts of links. I consider this as spamming (others will disagree) since it makes the thread harder to read. It would be nice if he kept to a representative link for each point to be made. Maybe add the other links as something like "also see 1, 2, 3".

The list is not mine. It has been contributed to by various people (including Zeuzzz). The conclusion is not mine alone.

All of these theories that plasma cosmology has within it have certainly
expanded my horizons. Evaluating a crackpot collection like plasma cosmology forces you to look critically at the foundations of conventional theories. Before coming to this forum I just blindly accepted the Big Bang. Now that I see the quantity of evidence for it and the weakness of the other theories I now have a better (and critical) understanding of why the Big Bang is the accepted theory.
 
Reality Check said:
Other people have commented on Zeuzzz's habit of overwhelming the threads with long posts of links.
Click to expand...

Extensive links with partial quotations, supporting a scientific view, are exactly what a thread that is contentious should have.

Reality Check said:
I consider this as spamming (others will disagree) since it makes the thread harder to read.
Click to expand...

Your opinion is noted. I find extensive dumb posts with nothing to back them up far more irritating. As well as making a thread unpleasant to read.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom