Plasma Cosmology - Woo or not

[Sol88]

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.

I am not real clued up on copyright but a link to the originating site sould be proof enough I'm not ripp'n someones work off?

 

[Sol88]

I'd like to expand the assumption of the Hubble constant, according to this site

Consequence
The Hubble law has a profound consequence.

* Galaxies are moving away from us.
* That is, the distance to any other typical Galaxy X is increasing with time.
* That is, if we go back in time, the distance gets smaller.
* That is, sometime in the past the distance between us and Galaxy X was 0.

here tp://zebu.uoregon.edu/~soper/Galaxies/hubble.html

the EU/PC way of seeing this"problem" is

The Hubble Arp law has a profound consequence.

* Galaxies are moving away from us. are of a different age than us
* That is, the distance to any other age of any typical Galaxy X is increasing with time.
* That is, if we go back in time, the distance age gets smaller younger. .
* That is, sometime in the past the distance/age between us and Galaxy X was 0

Base your assumptions on that and see what you come up with!

 

[Sol88]

Also i'd like to expand on Olbers paradox and it's relation to the CMBR

from ttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olbers%27_paradox

Assumptions

What if every line of sight ended in a star? (Infinite universe assumption #2)

If the universe is assumed to contain an infinite number of uniformly distributed luminous stars, then:

1. The collective brightness received from a set of stars at a given distance is independent of that distance;
2. Every line of sight should terminate eventually on the surface of a star;
3. Every point in the sky should be as bright as the surface of a star.

What if every line of sight terminated on a Birkeland current and it's associated synchrotron radiation? I mean not all the emission are in the visible spectrum so I guess it would appear "dark", as per Synchrotron radiation spectrum for galactic-sized plasma filaments, from

Peter, W.; Peratt, A.L.
Plasma Science, IEEE Transactions on
Volume 18, Issue 1, Feb 1990 Page(s):49 - 55

Summary:The radiation spectrum for synchrotron-emitting electrons in galactic-sized Birkeland current filaments is analyzed. It is shown that the number of filaments required to thermalize the emission spectrum to blackbody is not reduced when a non-Maxwellian electron distribution is assumed. If the cosmic background radiation (CBR) spectrum (T=2.76 K) is due to absorption and re-emission of radiation from galactic-sized current filaments, higher-order synchrotron modes are not as highly self absorbed as lower-order modes, resulting in a distortion of the blackbody curve at higher frequencies. This is especially true for a non-Maxwellian distribution of electrons for which the emission coefficient at high frequencies is shown to be significantly less than that for a Maxwellian distribution. The deviation of the CBR spectrum in the high-frequency regime may thus be derivable from actual astrophysical parameters, such as filamentary magnetic fields and electron energies in the model

link here tp://ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplore/login.jsp?url=http%3A%2F%2Fieeexplore.ieee.org%2Fiel1%2F27%2F1720%2F00045503.pdf%3Farnumber%3D45503&authDecision=-203

So there IS another way to interpret this information and not just the narrow minded view expelled by some!

 

[DeiRenDopa]

[...]

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,

It is?

Debatable by whom? I mean apart from you ...

Please explain how Arp's work - on challenging the empirical reality of the Hubble relationship - is credible.

See below for a link to an extensive (several pages long) discussion of the Hubble relationship, in a thread elsewhere in this section of the JREF Forum.

pity he was denied the telescope time to prove it either way!

Really?

How do you know that?

I mean a) that "he was denied telescope time", and b) that he would have used the telescope time to challenge the empirical reality of the Hubble relationship?

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.

If you say so; I was trying to be helpful, and short-circuit a great deal of very boring repetition (not to mention your time wasted writing posts that do little more than destroy your credibility and show - once more - that Plasma Cosmology is scientific woo).

In the JREF Forum thread Alernatives: Cosmological redshift/BBE I answer Skwinty's and PS' questions on how we can determine how much of the redshift, observed in an astronomical object, is due to the Hubble flow, and how much to other causes. Perhaps you would like to read that material, and join in the discussion?

 

[DeiRenDopa]

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.

(bold added)

There are? (I assume "their" was a typo).

What is the observational evidence of this?

Specifically, do I understand you correctly, that you think stars are "electrical/plasma focus objects"?

From the ones that connect Us (Earth) to the Sun,

There's another thread here, called "Lambda-CDM theory - Woo or not?", that may be relevant.

In it Michael Mozina (MM) presents material from a 994-page document by Birkeland.

It seems clear that neither Birkeland nor MM would agree with you, concerning the Sun and Earth being connected by "Birkeland currents electrical transmission lines".

Are you saying that both Birkeland and MM are wrong?

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.

Well, don't say I didn't try to help you ...

Zeuzzz (Z) tried this line, over many pages (and with fewer spelling mistakes), earlier in this thread.

He failed, rather dramatically.

You see, no one - not Alfvén, Peratt, not Lerner, not Scott, ... - has been able to show the reality of these hierarchical Birkeland currents.

And I see that you don't claim to either ("I'd hazard a queses"); so until you can make such a claim - backed by scientific evidence - it would seem that PC cannot explain Olbers' paradox, can it?

So if there are Universal, Cosmic and Solar Birkeland currents everywhere, then Olbers paradox is not a problem

(bold added)

Ah, but as there aren't ("Universal, Cosmic and Solar Birkeland currents everywhere"), then it remains a problem, doesn't it?

After all, I'm applying "Sol88 logic" - pointing to an assumption is sufficient to make my case ...

and if they radiate at microwave frequencies then the sky would be a perfect "fog" of microwave energy! [...]

It would?

But do these Birkeland currents - if they exist - "radiate at microwave frequencies"?

After all, if they don't, then there would be no "perfect "fog" of microwave energy", would there?

In any case, more assumptions, so case closed (per Sol88 logic).

Not much point continuing really is there ... I mean the foundations do not exist, so the stuff higher up the logic chain is gone, isn't it?

 

[DeiRenDopa]

I'd like to expand the assumption of the Hubble constant, according to this site

Consequence
The Hubble law has a profound consequence.

* Galaxies are moving away from us.
* That is, the distance to any other typical Galaxy X is increasing with time.
* That is, if we go back in time, the distance gets smaller.
* That is, sometime in the past the distance between us and Galaxy X was 0.

here http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~soper/Galaxies/hubble.html

the EU/PC way of seeing this"problem" is

The Hubble Arp law has a profound consequence.

(bold added)

What is the "Arp law"?

* Galaxies are moving away from us. are of a different age than us
* That is, the distance to any other age of any typical Galaxy X is increasing with time.
* That is, if we go back in time, the distance age gets smaller younger. .
* That is, sometime in the past the distance/age between us and Galaxy X was 0

How can the age of a galaxy be estimated, Sol88?

I mean, using plasma physics and based on what we can observe (of the galaxy)?

In any case, are Type Ia supernovae (SNe) standard candles, in PC?

How about Cepheids?

What is the PC explanation for the Tully-Fisher relation?

How were Friedman et al. able determine H₀ if they were not measuring distances?

Base your assumptions on that and see what you come up with!

I came up with a list of serious problems.

Perhaps the worst one is that it requires the Milky Way to be the centre of the universe.

Or do you think it is not?

Oh, and it also violates the second law of thermodynamics ... a consequence of which is that plasma physics is complete garbage (so there could be no "Universal, Cosmic and Solar Birkeland currents everywhere", for example).

(I made the URL work)

 

[Tubbythin]

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

Are you saying what I think you're saying?

 

[Tubbythin]

Base your assumptions on that and see what you come up with!

Like DRD said, that would seem to make us the centre of the Universe. indeed.

 

[Reality Check]

Also i'd like to expand on Olbers paradox and it's relation to the CMBR

What if every line of sight terminated on a Birkeland current and it's associated synchrotron radiation? I mean not all the emission are in the visible spectrum so I guess it would appear "dark", as per Synchrotron radiation spectrum for galactic-sized plasma filaments

...snip...

So there IS another way to interpret this information and not just the narrow minded view expelled by some!

Olbers paradox was "described by the German astronomer Heinrich Wilhelm Olbers in 1823 (but not published until 1826 by Bode) and earlier by Johannes Kepler in 1610 and Halley and Cheseaux in the 18th century^WP". Thus it was stated in terms of the light that they knew about, i.e. visible light ans so a "bright" night sky.

It actually refers to all light - including light emitted by a "Birkeland current" - and even includes neutrinos.

Thus you have just stated an argument against plasma cosmology (or at least your personal version of it that includes an infinite number of Birkeland currents).

In actual fact there is another implied argument against plasma cosmology: You quote a paper published in 1990 that predicts "a distortion of the blackbody curve at higher frequencies". That was before the CMB COBE (launched November 18, 1989) and WMAP (launched 2001) measurements.

Can you give us citations to the followup papers by Peter, W.; Peratt, A.L. showing that their predictions are observed?

Or have they been strangely quiet about their predictions?

 

[Reality Check]

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!

There are a couple of problems with this statement:

1. "denied the telescope time" needs a citation, e.g. where does he state this on his web site and what evidence does he provide to prove it.
2. He does not need telescope time since there is plenty of data publicly available.
3. His evidence so far is 6 or 7 of examples of cherry picked data. If he continues in this fashon we will just have more cherry picked examples. His theory needs to be proved using statistics, i.e. samples not examples.

The major flaw in his methodolgy is point 3 - he has a list of examples.
A proper methodolgy would be to compare the statistics for the position of QSO's wrt to AGN galaxies to the statistics for the position of QSO's wrt to non-AGN galaxies (e.g. dwarf galaxies).
(see Arp objects, QSO's and Statistics for the bad statistics used by his proponents in this forum).

Another flaw is that he has no viable mechanism for the ejection of QSO's from AGN galaxies, e.g. see the Hoyle-Narlikar Theory thread.

 

[Sol88]

In1983 Caltech denied him access to the telescope, which was to dump his research as dead weight, although it was the continuation of the research on which he built his high scientific standing! Arp concluded that he was Nonperson and resigned.

w.whither-progress.org/pages/copernicus.php

Because Arp’s conclusion “ran counter to accepted dogma and profaned a holy name—the sacrosanct Hubble red shift—Arp was petitioned to discontinue this line of study and recant his heretical views. When Arp refused on grounds of conscience, he was branded a recidivist and exiled beyond the cloistered pale of academia” (Jueneman 1990a, p. 45). That this criticism is voiced in mainline scientific journals such as Science and Nature indicates the level of concern over the repercussions that result from criticizing certain aspects of the Big Bang idea.

w.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v2/n1/history-intolerance-in-cosmology

Recently mainstream astronomers have joyfully announced that they can find no quantization effects in the observed redshift values of quasars. Of course not! The raw measured total redshift values of the universal set of all known quasars are not quantized. It is the inherent redshift z values that are!

Instead of nominating him for a prize (and simultaneously reexamining their assumption that "redshift equals distance"), Arp was (and continues to be) systematically denied publication of his results and refused telescope time. One would at least expect the "powers that be" to immediately turn the Chandra X-ray orbiting telescope, the Hubble space telescope, and all the big land based telescopes toward Arp's exciting discoveries in order to either confirm or disprove them once and for all. Instead, these objects have been completely excluded from examination. Official photographs are routinely cropped to exclude them. Those familiar with the Galileo story will remember the priests who refused to look through his telescope.

ww.electric-cosmos.org/arp.htm

And from todays TPOD ww.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2009/arch09/090324abell.htm

But accumulating anomalies undermined Arp’s instinctive thought:

*

Abell clusters have few normal galaxies. Most cluster galaxies are peculiar or distorted; many are “just star piles.”
*

They tend to group around nearby active galaxies—just as Quasi-stellar Objects (QSO) do.
*

Plus, they tend to occur in lines.
*

Plus, the lines are the same ones marked out by QSOs and jets.
*

Plus, the clusters are often paired across the nearby active galaxy with similar redshift values on each side—again just like QSOs.
*

Cluster galaxies display no Hubble relationship. The redshift-apparent magnitude relation for normal galaxies is the basis for claiming a redshift-distance relation and hence an expanding universe. The expected dispersion is about 0.1 magnitude in brightness and 50 km/sec in Doppler-interpreted redshift. Abell clusters show up to 4 magnitudes of variation in brightness (corresponding to a variation in luminosity among member galaxies of 40 times) and up to 30,000 km/sec in velocities (requiring them either to be exploding instead of merging or to be stretched out over billions of light-years into Fingers of God pointing at the Earth).
*

The x-ray radiation patterns around them show elongations toward and bridges to nearby active galaxies.
*

If the arcs were gravitationally lensed background QSOs, their numbers should increase with fainter magnitude. Instead, the numbers level off. A survey of the lensed objects in this cluster whose redshifts have been measured shows that most fall within redshifts of 1.0 to 3.5, with a maximum at 2.5. Only a handful fall around 5.0

So unfortunately it's not cut and dry, and the man has a point!

 

[Sol88]

I came up with a list of serious problems.

Perhaps the worst one is that it requires the Milky Way to be the centre of the universe.

Or do you think it is not?

The 'ol fingers of god thingy?

Fingers of God in an Expanding Universe

It is truly remarkable that authoritative astronomerse and physicists can measure galaxies in a well defined cluster and accept without question that some of the members are 1,000 Mpc from other members (that is, over 3,000,000,000 light years distant from other members).

What do they think this cluster is? In fact they are forced to say it is a structure that I would compare to a great sausage stretching out from us toward the outer reaches of the Universe. The miraculous aspect is that this sausage is pointing directly at us, the observer.

But perhaps an even stranger aspect is that the far end would be receding from us at an appreciable fraction of the speed of light. Quick, the mustard!

li nk w.haltonarp.com/articles/fingers_of_god_in_an_expanding_universe

That's a mainstream problem of no concern to the EU/PC paradigm.

And please explain

Oh, and it also violates the second law of thermodynamics ... a consequence of which is that plasma physics is complete garbage (so there could be no "Universal, Cosmic and Solar Birkeland currents everywhere", for example).

How so?

 

[Sol88]

In any case, are Type Ia supernovae (SNe) standard candles, in PC?

No

See this story

NASA's Hubble Space Telescope has identified a star a million times brighter than the sun that exploded as a supernova in 2005 — well before it should have, according to current theories of stellar evolution.

The doomed star, estimated at about 100 times our sun's mass, was not mature enough, according to theory, to have evolved a massive iron core of nuclear fusion ash. This is the supposed prerequisite for a core implosion that triggers a supernova blast.

"This might mean that we are fundamentally wrong about the evolution of massive stars, and that theories need revising," says Avishay Gal-Yam of the Weizmann Institute of Science, in Rehovot, Israel. The finding appears in the online version of Nature Magazine.

The explosion, called supernova SN 2005gl, was seen in the barred-spiral galaxy NGC 266 on October 5, 2005. NGC 266 is about 200 million light years away, in the constellation

/hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/2009/13/full/

 

[Sol88]

But do these Birkeland currents - if they exist - "radiate at microwave frequencies"?

After all, if they don't, then there would be no "perfect "fog" of microwave energy", would there?

In any case, more assumptions, so case closed (per Sol88 logic).

But do these Birkeland currents - if they exist, you are joking right? Do you think they do not exist? Because I think you may be a little confused there sunshine

It had taken 65 years to confirm Birkeland's original predictions.

In 2007, NASA's THEMIS (Time History of Events and Macroscale Interactions during Substorms) project "found evidence of magnetic ropes connecting Earth's upper atmosphere directly to the sun," [9] [10] noting "that solar wind particles flow in along these ropes, providing energy for geomagnetic storms and auroras," thus reconfirming Birkeland's model of solar-terrestrial electrical interaction. NASA also likened the interaction to a "30 kiloVolt battery in space," noting the "flux rope pumps 650,000 Amp current into the Arctic!"[11]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birkeland_current

65 years wow!!! no wonder mainstream is so passe. That is pure unadulterated EU right there my friend, and queses what it can be scaled!!!

please take the time to look at the picture

What do you notice? What are the similarities between the EU/PC line that some people here have been banging on about and the STANDARD MAINSTREAM explanation?

Seems 'ol mate MM in the Lambda-CDM thread is speaking with some truth!

It seems clear that neither Birkeland nor MM would agree with you, concerning the Sun and Earth being connected by "Birkeland currents electrical transmission lines".

Are you saying that both Birkeland and MM are wrong?

No my delusional friend seems you maybe though.

would you care to retract that statement? or better still offer us a mainstream explanation on just what constitutes a 30 kiloVolt battery in space. Care to have a go? I'd be interested to hear your non EU/PC explanation.

On the other forum I used to enjoy posting at, the the standard answer was we are not here to defend the mainstream theory just shoot hole in yours, so it was always one sided. As that is not a rule on this forum, perhaps you'd care to give it a go?

 

[DeiRenDopa]

[...]

Because Arp’s conclusion “ran counter to accepted dogma and profaned a holy name—the sacrosanct Hubble red shift—Arp was petitioned to discontinue this line of study and recant his heretical views. When Arp refused on grounds of conscience, he was branded a recidivist and exiled beyond the cloistered pale of academia” (Jueneman 1990a, p. 45). That this criticism is voiced in mainline scientific journals such as Science and Nature indicates the level of concern over the repercussions that result from criticizing certain aspects of the Big Bang idea.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v2/n1/history-intolerance-in-cosmology

(full URL restored)

I think you'll have to do better than that ...

I've not read this Jueneman 1990a article (I'm not even sure anyone keeps back copies of R&D Magazine), so I at least can't comment on the quote (for now).

However, the second part of your quote seems to be a very crude debating tactic ... conflating two quite different ideas.

But perhaps not; in which issues of Science and Nature were articles on Arp being denied telescope time because of his "challenge [to] the fundamental assumption of modern cosmology, that redshift is a uniform indicator of distance" published? Remember, that was your claim, and you are attempting to provide evidence in support of it^.

Recently mainstream astronomers have joyfully announced that they can find no quantization effects in the observed redshift values of quasars. Of course not! The raw measured total redshift values of the universal set of all known quasars are not quantized. It is the inherent redshift z values that are!

Instead of nominating him for a prize (and simultaneously reexamining their assumption that "redshift equals distance"), Arp was (and continues to be) systematically denied publication of his results and refused telescope time. One would at least expect the "powers that be" to immediately turn the Chandra X-ray orbiting telescope, the Hubble space telescope, and all the big land based telescopes toward Arp's exciting discoveries in order to either confirm or disprove them once and for all. Instead, these objects have been completely excluded from examination. Official photographs are routinely cropped to exclude them. Those familiar with the Galileo story will remember the priests who refused to look through his telescope.

http://www.electric-cosmos.org/arp.htm

(full URL restored)(bold added)

Let's see now ... ADS turns up 123 entries for Arp (Halton C. Arp, that is) as author, for the period 1990 to 2008.

Quite a few of these entries are papers published in journals such as ApJ, A&A, PASP, Science, Nature, ... There's even one published in 2006, entitled "A QSO Discovered at the Redshift of the Extended X-Ray Cluster RX J0152.7-1357".

Your second post, Sol88, includes this quote (from where?):

His landmark compilation of peculiar galaxies led him to challenge the fundamental assumption of modern cosmology

So, may one infer that it is objects in this "landmark compilation of peculiar galaxies" that "have been completely excluded from examination" (by "the Chandra X-ray orbiting telescope, the Hubble space telescope, and all the big land based telescopes")?

I'd really like you to answer this, Sol88, because then anyone can, objectively and independently, do some quick research to falsify your claim.

In any case, how does the existence of "quantized redshifts" in quasars (assuming such a thing, for the moment) challenge the Hubble relationship?

Oh, and given that (all?) the observations of (all?) quasars with measured redshifts have been published and are available, online, for free, why does Arp (or anyone) need telescope time to do an analysis to show that these quantizations are real? I mean, you, Sol88, could download the data and do the analysis, couldn't you?

For avoidance of doubt, that last question was not rhetorical ... I do hope you'll answer it.

And from todays TPOD ww.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2009/arch09/090324abell.htm

But accumulating anomalies undermined Arp’s instinctive thought:

*

Abell clusters have few normal galaxies. Most cluster galaxies are peculiar or distorted; many are “just star piles.”
*

They tend to group around nearby active galaxies—just as Quasi-stellar Objects (QSO) do.
*

Plus, they tend to occur in lines.
*

Plus, the lines are the same ones marked out by QSOs and jets.
*

Plus, the clusters are often paired across the nearby active galaxy with similar redshift values on each side—again just like QSOs.
*

Cluster galaxies display no Hubble relationship. The redshift-apparent magnitude relation for normal galaxies is the basis for claiming a redshift-distance relation and hence an expanding universe. The expected dispersion is about 0.1 magnitude in brightness and 50 km/sec in Doppler-interpreted redshift. Abell clusters show up to 4 magnitudes of variation in brightness (corresponding to a variation in luminosity among member galaxies of 40 times) and up to 30,000 km/sec in velocities (requiring them either to be exploding instead of merging or to be stretched out over billions of light-years into Fingers of God pointing at the Earth).
*

The x-ray radiation patterns around them show elongations toward and bridges to nearby active galaxies.
*

If the arcs were gravitationally lensed background QSOs, their numbers should increase with fainter magnitude. Instead, the numbers level off. A survey of the lensed objects in this cluster whose redshifts have been measured shows that most fall within redshifts of 1.0 to 3.5, with a maximum at 2.5. Only a handful fall around 5.0

So unfortunately it's not cut and dry, and the man has a point!

So here's an idea Sol88 ...

... why don't you get together with some folk over at TPOD, download the relevant data (remember, most of it is free, and freely available), develop some hypotheses, do some analyses, write up your results, and get them published?

I mean, that's what Arp's been doing for several decades now.

On the other hand, if the core of your claim is essentially that there is a conspiracy to hide, suppress, etc even the data obtained in surveys such as SDSS and by facilities such as Chandra and the HST, then please have the honesty to say so, directly and openly. We can then focus on the key point of your claims and not waste lots of time going over stuff that is contained earlier in this thread (and in many other threads here).

Sound like a plan?

^ I hope; if you've read at least the first half of this thread you'll know that Z was a master at making claims - at times quite outrageous claims - and then ignoring all comments or questions on them ... he earned himself some very uncomplimentary names for this behaviour.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

I came up with a list of serious problems.

Perhaps the worst one is that it requires the Milky Way to be the centre of the universe.

Or do you think it is not?

The 'ol fingers of god thingy?

Fingers of God in an Expanding Universe

It is truly remarkable that authoritative astronomerse and physicists can measure galaxies in a well defined cluster and accept without question that some of the members are 1,000 Mpc from other members (that is, over 3,000,000,000 light years distant from other members).

What do they think this cluster is? In fact they are forced to say it is a structure that I would compare to a great sausage stretching out from us toward the outer reaches of the Universe. The miraculous aspect is that this sausage is pointing directly at us, the observer.

But perhaps an even stranger aspect is that the far end would be receding from us at an appreciable fraction of the speed of light. Quick, the mustard!

li nk http://www.haltonarp.com/articles/fingers_of_god_in_an_expanding_universe

Nice doge Sol88.

I asked you if you thought the Milky Way was the centre of the universe, because that is (it seems to me) an implication of the point you made in your post (about assuming the "Arp law").

Instead of answering that question - I also note that you did not say what this "Arp law" is - you changed the topic, and introduced "Fingers of God".

To say that you are disingenuous is surely an understatement; your source - something by Arp apparently - clearly states that the object being discussed is "The Shapley Supercluster"! Note, it's not a cluster (of galaxies), it's a supercluster (i.e. a cluster of clusters).

It gets worse.

Earlier I suggested that you read material already posted, in this thread and in others here; it seems that you have ignored my suggestion ... because if you had, you'd have easily found material on this very topic!

That's a mainstream problem of no concern to the EU/PC paradigm.

OK, so you say.

Then you'll have no difficulty explaining the observed patterns in redshift space, will you? Please go ahead ...

And please explain

Oh, and it also violates the second law of thermodynamics ... a consequence of which is that plasma physics is complete garbage (so there could be no "Universal, Cosmic and Solar Birkeland currents everywhere", for example).

How so?

Sure, I'll go over it in a later post.

Which of the three parts are you most interested in?

A) The consequence that the second law of thermodynamics would be violated?

B) that plasma physics would be garbage if the second law of thermodynamics were violated?

C) that if plasma physics were garbage there'd be no giant Birkeland currents in the sky?

I will address all three, but which is of most interest to you?

 

[DeiRenDopa]

In any case, are Type Ia supernovae (SNe) standard candles, in PC?

No

See this story

NASA's Hubble Space Telescope has identified a star a million times brighter than the sun that exploded as a supernova in 2005 — well before it should have, according to current theories of stellar evolution.

The doomed star, estimated at about 100 times our sun's mass, was not mature enough, according to theory, to have evolved a massive iron core of nuclear fusion ash. This is the supposed prerequisite for a core implosion that triggers a supernova blast.

"This might mean that we are fundamentally wrong about the evolution of massive stars, and that theories need revising," says Avishay Gal-Yam of the Weizmann Institute of Science, in Rehovot, Israel. The finding appears in the online version of Nature Magazine.

The explosion, called supernova SN 2005gl, was seen in the barred-spiral galaxy NGC 266 on October 5, 2005. NGC 266 is about 200 million light years away, in the constellation

http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/2009/13/full/

(URL restored)

Now I'm quite confused ... I do hope you can sort me out Sol88.

First, I asked about Type Ia SNe ... and you introduced material about a supernova that is not a Ia SNe.

Next, I asked you about whether these SNe are standard candles in PC ... and you referenced a PR on hubblesite.

So, are SNe Ia standard candles in PC or not?

Well, you say "No"; OK, so what are SNe Ia in PC?

Further, I also asked you about several other methods that astronomers use to estimate (extra-galactic) distances (Cepheids, the T-F relation; there are quite a few others that I didn't mention) ... and you didn't mention them.

Why not?

In PC, are these methods used to estimate extra-galactic distances?

Finally, I gave a link to a landmark HKP (Hubble Key Project) paper, on the determination of H₀, and asked you how the team were able to make a consistent estimate of H₀ if there were no relationship between distance and redshift (over extra-galactic distances). You didn't answer that question.

Why not?

 

[Sol88]

Sure, why don't I try and answer that

Finally, I gave a link to a landmark HKP (Hubble Key Project) paper, on the determination of H0, and asked you how the team were able to make a consistent estimate of H0 if there were no relationship between distance and redshift (over extra-galactic distances). You didn't answer that question.

Why not?

If you'll have a crack at this

or better still offer us a mainstream explanation on just what constitutes a 30 kiloVolt battery in space. Care to have a go? I'd be interested to hear your non EU/PC explanation.

Fair?

 

[Sol88]

plus you did not answer my question here

But do these Birkeland currents - if they exist,

This one is very simple, I'll rephrase so as to be unambiguous

Do you, DeiRenDopa believe, in Birkeland currents? A simple yes or no would do.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Last one for now ...

But do these Birkeland currents - if they exist - "radiate at microwave frequencies"?

After all, if they don't, then there would be no "perfect "fog" of microwave energy", would there?

In any case, more assumptions, so case closed (per Sol88 logic).

But do these Birkeland currents - if they exist, you are joking right? Do you think they do not exist? Because I think you may be a little confused there sunshine

It had taken 65 years to confirm Birkeland's original predictions.

In 2007, NASA's THEMIS (Time History of Events and Macroscale Interactions during Substorms) project "found evidence of magnetic ropes connecting Earth's upper atmosphere directly to the sun," [9] [10] noting "that solar wind particles flow in along these ropes, providing energy for geomagnetic storms and auroras," thus reconfirming Birkeland's model of solar-terrestrial electrical interaction. NASA also likened the interaction to a "30 kiloVolt battery in space," noting the "flux rope pumps 650,000 Amp current into the Arctic!"[11]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birkeland_current

65 years wow!!! no wonder mainstream is so passe. That is pure unadulterated EU right there my friend, and queses what it can be scaled!!!

please take the time to look at the picture [qimg]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/0/02/FluxRopes%28BatteryInSpace%29.jpg/300px-FluxRopes%28BatteryInSpace%29.jpg[/qimg]

What do you notice? What are the similarities between the EU/PC line that some people here have been banging on about and the STANDARD MAINSTREAM explanation?

Seems 'ol mate MM in the Lambda-CDM thread is speaking with some truth!

(URL restored)

You seem, per an early post of yours, to have some problems with someone called tusenfem.

Well, there is a member with that name here, in the JREF Forum, and he has commented on that THEMIS PR several times: here, here, here, here, here, and here. Interestingly, the last three are in this very thread (you see, this PR has been put into play - and adequately addressed - before).

An extract from just one of those will do (for now at least):

MM: The "flux" is also known as "current flow". The magnetic rope described and shown by Themis carries powerful electrical currents between the sun and the Earth. [pretty much what you are claiming, Sol88, right?]

tusenfem: Flux is NOT current flow. Flux is the integral of B over a surface: \int B.dS, which has the units Tesla m2, and with a Tesla being Volt second per square meter, flux has the unit Volt second. "Current flow" has the unit of Amperes, which are coulombs per second, which is Farad Volt per second and then I get stuck trying to get to flux, sorry.

The magnetic rope most definitely carries a lot of current, however, it is no longer connected to the sun, that is just rediculous and no such thing is claimed in the paper. A magnetic rope NEEDS current to exist.

(He has also said that the Wikipedia entry on Birkeland currents is wrong, and that he will be working to get it fixed).

It seems clear that neither Birkeland nor MM would agree with you, concerning the Sun and Earth being connected by "Birkeland currents electrical transmission lines".

Are you saying that both Birkeland and MM are wrong?

No my delusional friend seems you maybe though.

would you care to retract that statement? or better still offer us a mainstream explanation on just what constitutes a 30 kiloVolt battery in space. Care to have a go? I'd be interested to hear your non EU/PC explanation.

On the other forum I used to enjoy posting at, the the standard answer was we are not here to defend the mainstream theory just shoot hole in yours, so it was always one sided. As that is not a rule on this forum, perhaps you'd care to give it a go?

(bold added)

I'll go one better: would you care to show, by reference to the appropriate sections of the 994-page Birkeland document, that Birkeland claimed that the Sun and Earth are connected by "Birkeland currents electrical transmission lines".

It's a simple request, and since you are (apparently) familiar with Birkeland's work, should be relatively easy to carry out ... goodness, you could start with the digitised version of the document (available from MM's website) and use the Search tool to find all places in it where the word string "connected by Birkeland currents electrical transmission lines" occurs.

With regard to MM: using this forum's advanced search, you can do the same thing, and find all the posts - in this forum, by MM - which contain that word string (or ones like it). Ditto for his own website (using Google).

Now I did all of the above, and all my searches came back with null (i.e. no such word strings are to be found, in any of the sources) ... but perhaps you will have better luck.

But then maybe you didn't understand what you yourself wrote? Maybe you meant to say something quite different than what you wrote?