Plasma Cosmology - Woo or not

You might as well say that pointing out issues with the Big Bang adds credence to creationism :)!


No actually, its the complete opposite, more issues with the Big Bang there are the less creationists can see their cherished god given event of creation out of nothing verified by science.
 
Perhaps you would like to restate this in English.

This is just Zeuzzz illustrating that he missed the quantitative revolution (again). He seems to think LCDM supports religious creationism because both indicate some form of beginning of time. The fact that one gives an age of the Universe of 13.7 billion years whereas the other has a typical age of say 10,000 years and thus these theories (or rather this theory and this "theory") disagree by a factor of 1.37 million is irrelevant because Zeuzzz missed the quantitative revolution.
 
So we have planets/moons acting as generators/motors immersed inside the suns plasma stream that is crissed crossed by "invisible" FAC's (Birkeland currents) transferring energy/information from one location to another over vast distances, such as the one's Ulysses found.

This ion tail, it now turns out, went on for an even longer stretch. A recent review of 1996 data from the Ulysses spacecraft reveals this tail as the longest ever recorded. Spanning at least 571 million kilometers--about 3.5 times the Earth-sun distance--the tail might have extended to the fringes of the solar system, researchers report in the April 6 NATURE.

"A spacecraft could travel through regions of the solar system picking up ions from the many invisible comet tails that probably crisscross our solar system," says George Gloeckler of the University of Maryland, College Park. He coauthored one of the two Ulysses studies in the NATURE issue. A NASA-European Space Agency mission launched in 1990, Ulysses explores the polar regions of the sun.
LINK

It might of even extended to the fringes of our solar system! Say somewhere near the heliospheric boundary?
A star is a pinpoint object at the center of a vast plasma sheath. The plasma sheath forms the boundary of the electrical influence of the star, where it meets the electrical environment of the galaxy. The Sun’s plasma sheath, or ‘heliosphere’ is about 100 times more distant than the Earth is from the Sun. To give an idea of the immensity of the heliosphere, all of the stars in the Milky Way could fit inside a sphere encompassed by the orbit of Pluto. The Sun’s heliosphere could accommodate the stars from 8 Milky Ways!
Charged bodies embedded in plasma create about themselves a protective cocoon of plasma, rather like a living cell wall. This cell wall is known as a Langmuir plasma sheath, or ‘double layer,’ which contains most of the voltage difference between the charged body and the surrounding plasma. Only an electric current sustains the charge separation across the double layer. If the surrounding plasma is moving relative to the charged body, the plasma sheath is drawn out into a teardrop or cometary shape. And if the charged body is rotating it will generate a magnetic field that is trapped inside the plasma sheath. This has led to the misnomer — “magnetosphere” — when referring to a plasma sheath.
LINK

Wow planets/moons comets are a part of a circuit :cool:

Now what could Mercury have discharged too? To form the spider crater? A charged planet and a charged comet dragging a conductive "rope" thru the solar system, I just ask what would happen if ever the twain shall meet?
 
Last edited:
So we have planets/moons acting as generators/motors immersed inside the suns plasma stream that is crissed crossed by "invisible" FAC's (Birkeland currents) transferring energy/information from one location to another over vast distances, such as the one's Ulysses found.

LINK

It might of even extended to the fringes of our solar system! Say somewhere near the heliospheric boundary? LINK

Wow planets/moons comets are a part of a circuit :cool:

Now what could Mercury have discharged too? To form the spider crater? A charged planet and a charged comet dragging a conductive "rope" thru the solar system, I just ask what would happen if ever the twain shall meet?
Wow - you are amzed by stuff that has been known for years.

What discharges and of what?

The spider crater was not formed by an electrical discharge as has already been shown.
 
I've continually tried to draw the line between cosmologically relvant material (plasma cosmology), plasma physics and electric universe theories. But I've said this so many times I'm just getting tired now. I'm gonna have a crack at your last post tomorrow, as I said I would previously, which should clear a lot of this up.

It doesn't. Just read the three publications I linked to, it mainly points out issues with the Big Bang and the relevance of plasma behaviour, and thus adds credence (albeit very indirectly) to some of the plasma based models PC is founded on.

This is the problem. On one hand you "try to draw a line" between PC (which as far as I can tell consists of Peratt's plasma-galaxy-has-flat-rotation and intergalactic-filaments-are-currents), and on the other hand you quoted a bunch of papers about star formation and one about Alfven waves in the solar corona.

Pointing out "issues with the big bang" does nothing for PC, unless PC can address those issues. Every crackpot theory in the world---PC, EU, Autodynamics, Null Physics, Creationism---is busy looking for ways to claim "issues with the big bang". PC's particular list of "issues" might have more credence if someone was suggesting both issues and resolutions, or avenues towards resolutions. (And, for that matter, knowing enough about the mainstream model to tell the difference between an underconstrained fit, a genuine puzzle, and a bad New Scientist article)
 
This is just Zeuzzz illustrating that he missed the quantitative revolution (again). He seems to think LCDM supports religious creationism because both indicate some form of beginning of time. The fact that one gives an age of the Universe of 13.7 billion years whereas the other has a typical age of say 10,000 years and thus these theories (or rather this theory and this "theory") disagree by a factor of 1.37 million is irrelevant because Zeuzzz missed the quantitative revolution.

Er, no. You seem to be ignoring the fact you can't "explain" your creation date any better than any religious oriented creationist without resorting to invisible friends. Why is that?
 
FYI T...

I've had plenty of creationists tell me that "God did it" when I tried to get them to explain the age of the universe based on the speed of light and the distance of stars in the sky. The only difference in your brand of religion seems to be that you require 3 invisible friends rather than one to achieve "superliminal expansion". "Inflation then dark energy and dark matter did it.". That seems to be the only significant difference and frankly your religion loses simply based on an Occum's razor argument. You need even more fudge factors than most creationist mythologies.
 
Last edited:
Er, no. You seem to be ignoring the fact you can't "explain" your creation date any better than any religious oriented creationist without resorting to invisible friends. Why is that?

Actually there are multiple sources of data all agreeing that the time since the Big Bang is approximately 13.7 billion years. Now, if anyone had a faintest clue what they were talking about they wouldn't make such ridiculous statements as "you can't "explain" your creation date any better than any religious oriented creationist without resorting to invisible friends"? But you just did ask that. Why is that?
 
FYI T...

I've had plenty of creationists tell me that "God did it" when I tried to get them to explain the age of the universe based on the speed of light and the distance of stars in the sky. The only difference in your brand of religion seems to be that you require 3 invisible friends rather than one to achieve "superliminal expansion".

How many times do you have to be told that the expansion of space is not limited to the speed of light in GR before you understand that the expansion of the speed is not limited to the speed of light. Once would be enough for most people. What's this now? 15? 20? I have no idea.

"Inflation then dark energy and dark matter did it.".
Nope. With or without any of these three expansion of spacetime is not restricted to the speed of light.

That seems to be the only significant difference and frankly your religion loses simply based on an Occum's razor argument.
I don't really have a religion. A religion I don't have can't lose.

You need even more fudge factors than most creationist mythologies.
Erm. This is coming from a person who's fudge factor for the CMBR still missed by a factor of 700 million.
 
Fudge Factors in Cosmology?

You need even more fudge factors than most creationist mythologies.
Horse Pucky. Cow Feathers. Pish Tosh. Nonsense. Balderdash. In yer dreems. Since when does the geophysical age of the Earth depend on cosmological parameters? Since when does the astrophysical age of a globular cluster depend on cosmological parameters? If we make the altogether reasonable assumption that things in the universe must be less than or at most equal in age to the universe itself, we can destroy the creationist idea of a 10,000 year old universe without breaking a sweat with the pinky fingers, let alone the whole hand!

As for the cosmological age of the cosmological universe, based on cosmology and cosmological physics, it actually demands amazingly few "fudge factors". In fact, you can get a really good approximation without any "fudge factors" at all. In fact, I will assert here and now that there is not a single "fudge factor" to be found anywhere in cosmology, and I double dog dare you to find one anywhere, if you can!! How's that for an open invitation (not that anything which comes of it will be any less repetitive than what has gone before).
 
Dancing David said:
Look invisible bunny pictures!
Is that sort of like those "Look, here's an image of all the dark matter in the universe" images?
No.

In a little bit more detail: 'invisible bunny pictures'* is a succinct shorthand, referring to subjective, intuitive interpretation(s) of an image (on a computer screen, or printed on paper, etc); the very essence of non-science. The estimated, projected 2D density of CDM (on the sky), of/near a rich cluster of galaxies for example, rendered as an image (with a legend relating colour/brightness to density, say) is science.

Why?

For starters, the latter is objective and independently verifiable; the former (obviously) is not. IOW, you - or anyone else - can take the raw data (from the HST, say), apply the published models, and reproduce the results. Or you could make your own observations, using your own space telescope, develop you own models and software codes, and reproduce the results.

Then there's the consistency checking; for example, do the lensing models produce consistent results when applied to circumstances where no CDM is involved (in the MACHO project, for example, or OGLE)? Or are the estimates of the total amount of CDM, derived from the lensing models, consistent with the hydrostatic equilibrium models, derived from x-ray observations (again, to give just one example)?

And so on.

In a word, the difference is between contemporary science (astrophysics, in this case) and an approach to science that was superceded at least five centuries ago. ... but if you don't get the quantitative nature of science, then sure, I grant you that it is difficult to understand the difference.

* marvelous phrase btw DD, well done! :)
 
Er, no. You seem to be ignoring the fact you can't "explain" your creation date any better than any religious oriented creationist without resorting to invisible friends. Why is that?

Stick to things you have a clue about, like.... uh.... errrr.... hmm.

You know how long inflation lasted, right MM? At most around 10-27 seconds. That's right: without inflation, the universe would be 13.7 billion years less 10-27 seconds old, instead of 13.7 billion years old. :eye-poppi

As for dark matter and dark energy, if we lived in a different universe - one without DM and DE - the age of that other universe might be different than ours. It might be full of faeries, too and in it you might be right about something, once! (OK, OK, I know that's getting a little crazy, but anything's possible, right?)

But in our universe, the age of the universe is about 13.7 billion years. Can we "explain" that age? Nope. Can't explain the mass of the electron either, or of the proton, or the value of the fine structure constant, or the QCD scale, etc. etc. There are around 25-30 numbers we can't explain and have to measure. But once we've measured them, we can explain just about every one of the literally trillions of scientific observations ever made in history of physical science.

Most people think that's not bad - in fact really worth doing, since it lets us build nice things like that computer you're using and that car you used to drive around (before they took your license away for DWMM). Unlike you, the rest of us don't close our eyes, make little fists, kick scream and throw temper tantrums every time something we didn't expect comes along. Instead, we study it, and learn from it, and after a while we can build even more useful things.
 
Unlike you, the rest of us don't close our eyes, make little fists, kick scream and throw temper tantrums every time something we didn't expect comes along. Instead, we study it, and learn from it, and after a while we can build even more useful things.

I think most of "us" like when something unexpected comes along. Physics would be pretty dull if we really had solved everything by the end of the 19th century.
 
Hi Michael, care to explain which data supports your funny electric star model?

Specifically how does the solar wind have positive, neutral and negative particles?
 
Meanwhile, If anyone still reads my links, heres the recent webpage from the ACG on some of the growing problems with Big Bang, notably the seeminly non cosmological nature of the CMB, and various other predictions the Big Bang made that have now been falsified. Includes issues about the Large scale structure seen in SDSS impossible to explain with LCDM without making the theory even more complex by than it already is, issues with "black hole" theories, MOND theory developments, the viability of expansion and "negative pressure" ideas along with the modifications of relativity, the properties of the CMBR and redshift issues.

April:
http://www.cosmology.info/newsletter/2009.04.pdf

Also the previous months publication contains some plasma cosmology relevant type material (page 5), and more issues with galaxy distribution from the GOODS survey, more enigmatic issues with the CMB and other issues.

March:
http://www.cosmology.info/newsletter/2009.03.pdf





The february issue also has some good material;

http://www.cosmology.info/newsletter/2009.02.pdf




will discuss in detail later, especially the April publication, which brings up some very pertinant points very relevent to this thread.
(bold added)

I wonder long we will have to wait for "later" ...

... and when (if?) our waiting is over, I wonder just how "pertinent" the points Z eventually makes (from the doc) turn out to be (not to mention how "relevant" they are to this thread ...).
 
Bump. Haven't forgotten. Gimme a day or two. Kinda busy at the mo.
That will be interesting:
  • The April newsletter has no plasma cosmology in it.
  • The March newsletter has a "Plasma Cosmology" section that contains no cosmology (just plasma physics on planetary, stellar and interstellar scales)
  • The closest the February newsletter gets is more plasma physics ("Paradigm shifts in solar dynamo modelling" and "Alfven waves as a driving mechanism in stellar winds").
Or maybe you are back to the non-science defintion of "plasma cosmology" as
  • Anything that is not the Big Bang theory.
  • Anything that is plasma physics applied at any scale.
 

Back
Top Bottom