Plasma Cosmology - Woo or not

[Zeuzzz]

Plasma Cosmology - Woo or not

Not.

 

[Tubbythin]

So imho that's a problem for big bangers to work out, good luck and let us know how you go!

Er. So you have absolutely no explanation whatsoever for the presence of the CMBR or the fact that the Universe is very very close to flat? As for Hubble and the Lyman-alpha forrest, I only have your word for it that Arp's paper is really and landmark. And you didn't answer Olbers' at all. Should a PC Universe be bright all over, if not why not?

In the EU/PC model most of those problems are not even there, if the redshift assumptions is wrong then there is no Hubble relationship problem, it is something the mathematicians have caused themselves bit silly eh?

The redshift is an observed experimental fact. The interpretation of that redshift may be open to debate but not the fact that the redshift is there. So, what is the consistent alternative PC/EU theory?

 

[Tubbythin]

Plasma Cosmology - Woo or not

Not.

So... please be my guest Zeuzzz:
Perhaps you might like to give us a consistent PC theory that explains all of the following:
The Hubble relation
The CMBR
The Lyman-alpha forest
Olbers' paradox
The flatness problem
The horizon problem
The abundance of the elements
???

 

[Tubbythin]

Oh, and Sol88. COuld you also tell us the age of the Universe in your theory and whether said theory is consistent with the laws of thermodynamics?

 

[Ziggurat]

Fifth, The CMBR:

That assessment is wrong. Big bang cosmology does not need to assume that there are no temperature gradients, nor are such gradients of much significant to the line shape. In fact, we can measure temperature gradients in the CMB (they're small, but they exist), but they do not change the line shape. That line shape is well explained by the big bang model (without the need to assume no temperature gradients), but it is unexplained by any of the plasma cosmologists.

In the EU/PC model most of those problems are not even there

In the sense that you just ignore them, sure, they're "not there". But that's all you've done: you've ignored the problems completely, you haven't actually proposed any solutions whatsoever.

if the redshift assumptions is wrong then there is no Hubble relationship problem

That's a mighty big "if". And if you're relying on Arp to rescue you from the Hubble relationship, well, you're backing a losing horse. His surveys are uncontrolled junk. Furthermore, saying that the Hubble relationship is wrong doesn't solve the problem: regardless of how well correlated those red shifts are with distance, they are still redshifts, and they still need to be explained. Arp can't actually do so in any sensible way, and neither can you.

 

[Reality Check]

Plasma Cosmology - Woo or not

Not.

This was established many, many posts ago.

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 (redshifts).
• 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.

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.

Of course many of the mutually inconsistent theories included in pc are wrong, e.g.

• Peratt's plasma model of galaxy formation - he neglects gravity, no evidence of billions of galactic sized plasma filaments, etc.
• Coherent Raman Effect on incoherent light - redshift of host galaxies = redshift of quasar.
• Errors in Tired Light Cosmology.

And then there is the inability of these theories to actually match observations, e.g. a CMB that has a perfect black body thermal spectrum.

 

[Reality Check]

So imho that's a problem for big bangers to work out, good luck and let us know how you go!

Sol88: You are falling into the basic logic trap that other PC proponents on the furum have fallen into. This is that assuming that showing that BBT has problems means that PC does not have problems.

Showing that BBT has problems has no bearing on whether any other theory is better or not.

You need to answer the actual question. This was (emphasis added)

Perhaps you might like to give us a consistent PC theory that explains all of the following:
The Hubble relation
The CMBR
The Lyman-alpha forest
Olbers' paradox
The flatness problem
The horizon problem
The abundance of the elements
???

The flatness and horizon problems are an expanding universe feature so you can ignore them if the PC theory "is assumed to contain an infinite number of uniformly distributed luminous stars".

 

[Tim Thompson]

Sol88 Rides Again!

Perhaps we could pick up were we left off, with no threat of being banned like some other no name forum, for stepping outside the box? Perhaps your other mates might like to step in now we are on an even playing field? Tusenfem, Neried, Antioseb and so forth??

I thought the screen name looked familiar. You were banned for being obnoxious & insulting, and I see you are primed & ready to demonstrate the same attitude here. Be my guest. You will find that there are people here to cover the subject well enough.

Can charge separation happen in space on large scales Tim?

Not the way you want it to happen, with huge electron streams. The fact that protons are more massive than electrons means that you can get gravitational charge separation even in an electron/proton plasma; heavy ions or charged dust grains can amplify the effect, but in any case the effect is not significant for large scale processes. You can also get charge separation by imposing a magnetic field on the plasma, but that too is rarely significant over large scales.

Does the movement of plasma constitute an ELECTRIC current and it's attendant magnetic counterpart, Tim?

The movement of plasma will not normally constitute an "electric" current in the colloquial sense, where an "electric" current consists of a flow of like charged particles (i.e., electrons or protons). But of course, the flow of a charge neutral plasma will generate a magnetic field.

Do the experiments conducted in the lab on Earth have any bearing on the 99% of the Universe that is Plasma? i.e. z-pinch, double layers, field aligned current (aka Birkeland currents), long range attractiveness short range repulsive forces and filamentation among others, Tim

Of course they do, but it does require some understanding of physics to know how the experiments relate to systems they are not intended to model. There are astrophysical doubler layers, field aligned currents, filaments & etc. The difference between real physics, and plasma cosmology is that plasma cosmologists think that everything they see is plasma (every filament is a plasma filament & etc.), while real physicists realize there are other forces at work. In particular, we know that the filaments seen in star formation are not plasma filaments because they occur in cold molecular clouds.

Even a second year high school student could identify an energy source for Plasma universe!

Well then this is your chance to prove you are at least as smart as one of them and tell us what it is.

That's good Tim, gravity operating as we know it does!!! So umm.. how do we make gamma rays on Earth using gravity? or X-rays or even radio waves??

Now you're just being silly. Real astrophysics involves heavy doses of plasma physics, electro magnetism, and other non-gravitational forces. The gamma rays are generated by electrical discharges in the form of lightning, for broad band emissions, and by nuclear physics processes for narrow band emission. There, does that make you feel better? Do you actually have a point to make?

The BB theory was "made up" before we got into space, ... The new Plasma cosmology is on the money!!!

BB theory works just fine, and the "new" plasma cosmology is as dead & gone as the "old" one.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Plasma Cosmology - Woo or not

Not.

Plasma Cosmology - Woo or not

Woo.

Why?

Per the definition of Plasma Cosmology, supplied by Z himself:

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

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

(bold added)

Yep, that's right ... Plasma Cosmology includes, as a basic assumption, an explicit rejection of General Relativity (GR).

Now is GR rejected because it is internally inconsistent? No.

Because it is inconsistent with relevant experimental results? No.

Because it is inconsistent with relevant observations? No.

Why is it explicitly rejected? Because .... just because.

A more concise, clear example of the very definition of scientific woo would surely be hard to find.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Can charge separation happen in space on large scales Tim?

Does the movement of plasma constitute an ELECTRIC current and it's attendant magnetic counterpart, Tim?

Do the experiments conducted in the lab on Earth have any bearing on the 99% of the Universe that is Plasma? i.e. z-pinch, double layers, field aligned current (aka Birkeland currents), long range attractiveness short range repulsive forces and filamentation among others, Tim

Even a second year high school student could identify an energy source for Plasma universe!



That's good Tim, gravity operating as we know it does!!! So umm.. how do we make gamma rays on Earth using gravity? or X-rays or even radio waves??

The BB theory was "made up" before we got into space, now we have and with what we've discovered it should be given the credit it deserves and put to rest, it just does not work and no matter what you add to it to try and make it work it will not! it so passe and 19th century

The new Plasma cosmology is on the money!!!

Perhaps we could pick up were we left off, with no threat of being banned like some other no name forum, for stepping outside the box? Perhaps your other mates might like to step in now we are on an even playing field? Tusenfem, Neried, Antioseb and so forth??

I'd love a debate again without you being able to push the panic button!

(bold added)

Welcome to the JREF Forum, Sol88!

Have you had a chance to read through this thread, paying particular attention to the content of the posts?

If so, you'll have noticed that Z tried very, very hard to make a case that Plasma Cosmology (PC) is not (scientific) woo. Sadly, he failed dismally.

Along the way, he was asked questions about the material he so diligently posted; sadly, he answered only a small handful of those questions.

Would you like to pick up where he left off, and have a go at answering those open questions now?

In any case, to what extent is PC defined as Eric Lerner defined it (see link in my last post, to Z's)? Specifically, do you too reject GR out of hand (by fiat)?

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Ok, Tubbythin first, unfortunatly you will have to wait for my fifteen post to come up before any links can be posted as per forum rules!

[...]

No matter that you have not got a post count of 15+ yet or not, I suspect that quoting material - as you have done - without acknowledging the source is not only very bad form, and not only (likely) against the JREF Forum rules, but is also something you may get banned for if you keep doing it.

You see, this forum is no more exempt from the various countries' laws on copyright than any other forum.

In any case, perhaps you'd be kind enough to state your sources, maybe in such a way that you don't have to post a link? By putting spaces between the letters in the URL(s), for example.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Ok, Tubbythin first, unfortunatly you will have to wait for my fifteen post to come up before any links can be posted as per forum rules!



Ok the first, The Hubble relation

Halton C. Arp

Halton C. Arp is one of the key actors in the contemporary debate on the origin and evolution of galaxies in the universe. His landmark compilation of peculiar galaxies led him to challenge the fundamental assumption of modern cosmology, that redshift is a uniform indicator of distance.

[...]

OK, so?

Surely it is irrelevant who Halton C. Arp is, and also irrelevant what he challenged, isn't it?

Surely the key question is whether his challenge was successful, isn't it?

Sol88, while you're new to this forum - so may be somewhat excused for you evident ignorance - don't you think it would have been wise to check to see if Arp's ideas had already been covered here? As in 'here in this thread' and 'here in this part of the JREF Forum'?

You see, if you'd done your homework, you'd have discovered that several people - with thousands of posts to their names - have tried to show that Arp's challenge (that you quote) is (was) successful; sadly, they failed (usually rather spectacularly, for example by displaying such a gross ignorance of Arp's own work as to be laughable, or publicly flunking Statistics 101).

 

[Sol88]

Reality Check

The flatness and horizon problems are an expanding universe feature so you can ignore them if the PC theory "is assumed to contain an infinite number of uniformly distributed luminous stars".

Ok I agree with that, so as I understand it their are an infinite number of electrical/plasma focus objects in the Universe most usually clumped or structured into a coherent form and CONNECTING them are Birkeland currents electrical transmission lines on just about any scale you'd care to pick up.

From the ones that connect Us (Earth) to the Sun, and the sun to Heliopuase and up thru plasma tendency to show hierarchical structure and form, I can't give you an answer to the "next" one up, but I'd hazard a queses based on plasma TESTED in a lab and say it's on the same/associated Birkeland filament.

So if there are Universal, Cosmic and Solar Birkeland currents everywhere, then Olbers paradox is not a problem and if they radiate at microwave frequencies then the sky would be a perfect "fog" of microwave energy!

And since the flatness and horizon problems are solved thru the universe not having to expand under EU/PC then their goes redshift and the Hubble relations as well, because, correct me if I'm wrong, but they take NO account whatsoever of electrical plasma effects that the plasma and electric universe nuts imagine they have the power to do.

So that leaves the Lyman Alpha problem which I must admit I not so clued up on but give us a bit

So I repeat for the benefit of our esteemed Tim T, EU does not ignore these problems they just simply do NOT exist under the EU/PC paradigm and that's it's beauty!! :shocked : (love the emo, but a bit harsh on the eyes, need a Lighting bolt or something!!)

When my posts catch up to the 15 post limit, we can start doing the abstract tennis thing again.

 

[Sol88]

Surely it is irrelevant who Halton C. Arp is, and also irrelevant what he challenged, isn't it?

My friend you tripp'n? irrelevant wouldn't be the word I'd have used!

Surely the key question is whether his challenge was successful, isn't it?

Very much so!! It's still very debatable whether he's work has credence or not, pity he was denied the telescope time to prove it either way!

You see, if you'd done your homework, you'd have discovered that several people - with thousands of posts to their names - have tried to show that Arp's challenge (that you quote) is (was) successful; sadly, they failed (usually rather spectacularly, for example by displaying such a gross ignorance of Arp's own work as to be laughable, or publicly flunking Statistics 101).

If you say so, but it's not your job to say over and over again and tell readers here the dogma YOU believe, when most people here can learn for themselves.

 

[brantc]

Well, I guess that's the end of that. The very heart of prejudice; heaven forbid that you actually try to learn anything about the topic, lest knowledge interfere with your philosophical comfort zone.

See paper below.

And you would be wrong. The reality is that the formation of filaments is a complicated affair that involves thermodynamics, hydrodynamics, plasma physics, magnetic fields, and more. You would simply ignore everything except plasma physics, and you would therefore guarantee that you are wrong. So, we see for instance An Origin of Filamentary Structure in Molecular Clouds; Nagai, Inutsuka & Miyama; The Astrophysical Journal, 506(1): 306-322, October 1998. Here the authors demonstrate how gravitational collapse will form filamentary structures, given an initially spherical cloud. There is a lot of physics involved; angular momentum, thermodynamics, gravitation, magnetic fields and more. But the primary driver of collapse is gravity, not a "pinch", which would probably not be effective at such large scales anyway. But of course this will not change your mind, since it's all "equations", and you don't see any need to bother with such trivialities.

From reading around the math, and asking other people about what type of math is required to be able to check or refute the work in that paper, perturbation theory on that level is of no benefit. It would not convince me of the correctness of the arguments.

The basic idea is that you still need some event(perturbation) to come along and trigger a collapse from self-gravitating, filamentary molecular clouds into dense cores, H-H objects(proto stars), jets and outflows. And there is something balancing those clouds against gravity otherwise they would have collapsed at the same time as the filaments(preferential), or a "long time ago"....


The magnetic fields and or dense core out flows that thread the molecular clouds are not aligned with the intergalactic magnetic field. There is no causal link as to how the helical rotating(!) magnetic fields that thread through the filaments in the molecular cloud are created or sustained(some guesses). Velocity measurements indicate bulk flow in the filaments.

If you want all the references that went into that statement, let me know.

But it is important to establish the ultimate source for the energy that drives the process. The mainstream clearly identifies gravity as the ultimate energy source. Furthermore, we can see when we examine the details that gravity, operating as we know it does, in the context of physics as we know it, will in fact produce detailed structures the are consistent with what we actually see when we look at the universe. You, on the other hand, cannot identify an energy source, and cannot demonstrate even qualitatively that the physical processes you allege could in fact produce structures similar to those we see in the real universe. That makes your idea inferior.

Okay. Would it make you happier if I said its a big black hole rotating in the center of the universe. That is the mother generator!!!!!!

I could also say its a phenomenon that happens when the aether touches space. Very gently.... Aether flows downhill.....

It could be that our sun is a hollow iron sphere that resonates like a Tesla coil with the aether sink at the center of our galaxy and glows like a plasma ball.

It could be the difference between the outer edge of the galaxy and the center and if there are filaments connecting galaxies its the mother generator....

2 plasma clouds of differing potentials?

All plasma radiates from this. Yeah I know but lets just pretend for a moment....

And given enough time and grants I could prove it, but I dont have a lifetime left...

And finally ...


Why, because there are a lot of them? But there are a lot more who do accept big bang cosmology, so if you are impressed by mere numbers, why not go with the mainstream? Or perhaps it's because all the alternative types are really smart? But there are even more really smart people in the mainstream, so if that's what impresses you, why not go with the mainstream? Or maybe it's as simple as them saying what you want to hear, so naturally they must be right?

All of the arguments I have ever seen in opposition to mainstream "big bang" cosmology are inferior to the counter arguments. I don't say that all of the alternative ideas are stupid; quite the contrary, many are quite clever. And I don't think that all of the alternative thinkers are stupid either; quite the contrary, many are quite intelligent. I simply say they are all "wrong" in the sense of presenting ideas inferior to their competition.

But, of course, all of the serious contenders have learned a thing or two about those pesky equations.

Again those pesky equations will not tell you if an idea is correct, just that it will work on paper. And we use them all the time for most of daily routine. I'm not arguing against that.
I'm saying that sometimes there is a unintentional misapplication of math to shift the balance of an idea. And in cosmology this seems to have gotten out of control.
There is no turning back now, the only thing that can happen is convergence. The problem is it takes longer.

And who is to judge if an idea is inferior??? If the model is wrong it could be a great idea. I know what you meant to say but still, in the course of nature we have no idea what is inferior and its difficult to fully subjectively evaluate an idea. I know you take issue with that statement but its what I believe.

Take the (2) super high energy GRB/unknown events where the high and low energy EM showed up at different times. Why invoke new physics?

Why not just say it was a z-pinch on a large filament?

See x-ray output.
Status of Z-Pinch ICF Research.
http://fire.pppl.gov/fpa06_matzen_zicf.pdf

 

[Sol88]

Tim wrote

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Can charge separation happen in space on large scales Tim?

Not the way you want it to happen, with huge electron streams. The fact that protons are more massive than electrons means that you can get gravitational charge separation even in an electron/proton plasma; heavy ions or charged dust grains can amplify the effect, but in any case the effect is not significant for large scale processes. You can also get charge separation by imposing a magnetic field on the plasma, but that too is rarely significant over large scales.

That, I think is our sticking point Tim, scale? We are talking magnetic fields over cosmic distance's talk about charge storage, via separation of charges!

I mean even our rather, small, in the scheme of things "big", Moon, can levitate dust and cause weather with winds with speeds of up to 1kms, as most other airless rocky bodies immersed in the Sun's plasma sheath do,because of charge separation!

So I ASSUME it happens to any body in such an environment including comets! And if mathematical gravity can runaway into any sort of singularity then if there where no feedback mechanism to stop runaway charge separation... it's a big Universe, the mind boggles

 

[Sol88]

Originally Posted by Sol88 View Post
Does the movement of plasma constitute an ELECTRIC current and it's attendant magnetic counterpart, Tim?
The movement of plasma will not normally constitute an "electric" current in the colloquial sense, where an "electric" current consists of a flow of like charged particles (i.e., electrons or protons). But of course, the flow of a charge neutral plasma will generate a magnetic field.

Cool so we agree on that, stick something in that flow and whalla charge separation, with it's E and B fields and an electric current!

 

[Sol88]

Of course they do, but it does require some understanding of physics to know how the experiments relate to systems they are not intended to model. There are astrophysical doubler layers, field aligned currents, filaments & etc. The difference between real physics, and plasma cosmology is that plasma cosmologists think that everything they see is plasma (every filament is a plasma filament & etc.), while real physicists realize there are other forces at work. In particular, we know that the filaments seen in star formation are not plasma filaments because they occur in cold molecular clouds.

Not everything only the 99% that is plasma, gravity most prolly explains the other 1% so well done!

 

[Sol88]

Now you're just being silly. Real astrophysics involves heavy doses of plasma physics, electro magnetism, and other non-gravitational forces. The gamma rays are generated by electrical discharges in the form of lightning, for broad band emissions, and by nuclear physics processes for narrow band emission. There, does that make you feel better? Do you actually have a point to make?

No point, but that's how I understand it as well depends on the size of the lightning I guess?

 

[Sol88]

BB theory works just fine

It does NOT, see problems put forward above!

Lets move along shall we?