DeiRenDopa
Master Poster
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2008
- Messages
- 2,582
One thing I have found quite interesting in reading the material cited by Z and iantresman is how the black-and-white woo aspect of PC, as presented by Z, arose.
Is it crystal clear in Alfvén's works, for example, or did it creep in later in the writing of Peratt or Lerner?
First, though, a reminder of what this unambiguous non-science aspect is.
Recall Z's post #684 in this thread, where he quotes from a wikipage written by Lerner (extract, my bold):
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
In repeating the succinct definition of PC, in post#952, Z strengthens this point, and thus the case that PC is non-science (again, extract, my bold):
E) Since every part of the universe we observe is evolving, it assumes that the universe itself is evolving as well. A scalar expansion as predicted from the FRW metric is not accepted as part of this evolution, ie, the universe is assumed as static and infinite.
It is important to note that I am focussing on only one aspect here; it may well be that an equally strong case for PC being non-science (and hence the very definition of woo) can be made from other aspects.
Lerner's wikipage gives [12] as "Alfven, Hannes, "Cosmology: Myth or Science?" (1992) IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science (ISSN 0093-3813), vol. 20, no. 6, p. 590-600."; interestingly, a paper by Alfvén with the same title was published in 1984 (J. Astrophs. Astr. (1984) 5, 79-98).
Many of the themes in the PC material presented by Z and iantresman are clearly stated in this 1984 Alfvén paper, but wrt the applicability of General Relativity (GR) to cosmology Alfvén is much more cautious than Lerner, Z, (or iantresman?).
Specifically, in section 4.3, Alfvén makes a general case, with order-of-magnitude estimates, that GR is likely to be essentially trivial, phenomenologically, over lengths of ~1 billion pc and densities comparable to that of the local universe, and adds (in a footnote) "What is said should not be interpreted as a questioning of the general theory of relativity. It is only an attempt to clarify to what extent it is applicable to cosmology."
Since 1984, there has been a huge increase in published astronomical observations directly relevant to cosmology, with many of the uncertainties and open questions of 1984 addressed.
In particular, the small number of concrete challenges Alfvén mentions (he does not develop any of them), directly relevant to the applicability of GR to cosmology, have been resolved very convincingly; the hierarchical structure of the observable universe has been determined to a far greater degree of precision, and over a far greater scale for example. In a scientific sense then, Alfvén's objections have been addressed, and the case for the applicability of GR to cosmology is objectively overwhelming, both in the actualistic and prophetic senses Alfvén mentions.
And it seems that in at least one of his later papers* Alfvén all but acknowledges this! In this paper he presents a version of Klein's cosmological model in which the universe evolves, from the time radiation streamed free, similar to that of 'the Big Bang Theory'. Unfortunately, this paper contains no quantitative account of the expansion history (the axes in Fig 6 have no scales, for example), so one cannot check whether Alfvén adopted GR explicitly. And, sadly, one can read the text of this paper and conclude that Alfvén (and Klein) display one of the most basic misunderstandings of the Hubble relationship (some sort of explosion vs an expansion), and an all but certain misunderstanding of GR ("Annihilation increases with increasing density, and eventually it is large enough to convert the contraction into expansion").
So how did Lerner (and Peratt?) abandon science when his intellectual grandfather (Alfvén) apparently never did? How did it come about that GR was declared inapplicable to cosmology by fiat, rather than by the usual methods of science?
And why is there so little discussion of this radical departure from Alfvén's own approach, in the material Z and iantresman have presented?
* "Cosmology in the Plasma Universe: An Introductory Exposition" (IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science Vol. 18 No. 1)
Is it crystal clear in Alfvén's works, for example, or did it creep in later in the writing of Peratt or Lerner?
First, though, a reminder of what this unambiguous non-science aspect is.
Recall Z's post #684 in this thread, where he quotes from a wikipage written by Lerner (extract, my bold):
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
In repeating the succinct definition of PC, in post#952, Z strengthens this point, and thus the case that PC is non-science (again, extract, my bold):
E) Since every part of the universe we observe is evolving, it assumes that the universe itself is evolving as well. A scalar expansion as predicted from the FRW metric is not accepted as part of this evolution, ie, the universe is assumed as static and infinite.
It is important to note that I am focussing on only one aspect here; it may well be that an equally strong case for PC being non-science (and hence the very definition of woo) can be made from other aspects.
Lerner's wikipage gives [12] as "Alfven, Hannes, "Cosmology: Myth or Science?" (1992) IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science (ISSN 0093-3813), vol. 20, no. 6, p. 590-600."; interestingly, a paper by Alfvén with the same title was published in 1984 (J. Astrophs. Astr. (1984) 5, 79-98).
Many of the themes in the PC material presented by Z and iantresman are clearly stated in this 1984 Alfvén paper, but wrt the applicability of General Relativity (GR) to cosmology Alfvén is much more cautious than Lerner, Z, (or iantresman?).
Specifically, in section 4.3, Alfvén makes a general case, with order-of-magnitude estimates, that GR is likely to be essentially trivial, phenomenologically, over lengths of ~1 billion pc and densities comparable to that of the local universe, and adds (in a footnote) "What is said should not be interpreted as a questioning of the general theory of relativity. It is only an attempt to clarify to what extent it is applicable to cosmology."
Since 1984, there has been a huge increase in published astronomical observations directly relevant to cosmology, with many of the uncertainties and open questions of 1984 addressed.
In particular, the small number of concrete challenges Alfvén mentions (he does not develop any of them), directly relevant to the applicability of GR to cosmology, have been resolved very convincingly; the hierarchical structure of the observable universe has been determined to a far greater degree of precision, and over a far greater scale for example. In a scientific sense then, Alfvén's objections have been addressed, and the case for the applicability of GR to cosmology is objectively overwhelming, both in the actualistic and prophetic senses Alfvén mentions.
And it seems that in at least one of his later papers* Alfvén all but acknowledges this! In this paper he presents a version of Klein's cosmological model in which the universe evolves, from the time radiation streamed free, similar to that of 'the Big Bang Theory'. Unfortunately, this paper contains no quantitative account of the expansion history (the axes in Fig 6 have no scales, for example), so one cannot check whether Alfvén adopted GR explicitly. And, sadly, one can read the text of this paper and conclude that Alfvén (and Klein) display one of the most basic misunderstandings of the Hubble relationship (some sort of explosion vs an expansion), and an all but certain misunderstanding of GR ("Annihilation increases with increasing density, and eventually it is large enough to convert the contraction into expansion").
So how did Lerner (and Peratt?) abandon science when his intellectual grandfather (Alfvén) apparently never did? How did it come about that GR was declared inapplicable to cosmology by fiat, rather than by the usual methods of science?
And why is there so little discussion of this radical departure from Alfvén's own approach, in the material Z and iantresman have presented?
* "Cosmology in the Plasma Universe: An Introductory Exposition" (IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science Vol. 18 No. 1)
Last edited:
