Plasma Cosmology - Woo or not

Zeuzzz said:
Infact forget it sorry but im not going to even pretend I have enough time to reinvest my time and energy into this thread, I have more pressing real world matters at the moment and I would likely not spend enough time to put my side across well enough. Even my current posts are brief as it is, so im going to say bye to this thread until I have more spare time.
Click to expand...
Fair enough.

Bye (for now?).
 
For those who think I left the battleground, I did not, but am travelling at the moment to attend a meeting at ESTEC for the new Jupiter meeting.
At some slow times during the meeting I will try to read the 1914 Brikeland paper about solar corpuscules. However, looking at the NYT article, I think that Birkeland misinterpreted how exactly the platinum(?) layer was deposited from the cathode to the anode.
Okay, back from Birkie to Ganymede.
Tadah

ETA: oops wrong thread, but anywhooooooooo
Glad to see double layers are once more being discussed, these magical all-purpose entities.
 
Last edited:
Dancing David said:
Here is one, http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=107779
Click to expand...
Thanks for reminding me of that thread Dancing David. I have the last post in it which points out a fundemental flaw flaw Arp's methodology:
Reality Check said:
To more clearly see the problem with Arp's methodology consider the following adaption of it:
Look for images of unusual concentrations of quasars relatively near an arbitary empty point such as the center of the concentration (making sure that there is no galaxy that point).
If there are such images then run Arp's probability calculation. You will get the same magntiude of probability since the calculation does not depend on the nature of the central object.
​
Would Arp then conculde that quasars are emitted from empty space?
Click to expand...
 
So as I do not have immediate responses to many of the critiques here that shows to me that I need to do my homework all around. I am glad I got the vigorous responses I have seen here for the BB side of the debate. I do want to make a note about one thing though related to RC's signature and the link to the NASA webpage "NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter" in it.

To me, this is not direct proof. I would say this even if I 100% believed in the BB. Direct proof to me is having dark matter particles being detected in a particle detector. Anything less then this is indirect proof. Therefore, the proof NASA has, I would still consider to be indirect proof. This is not a religious or philosophical position to hold. It is a show me the beef position to hold.

So thanks for the links and arguments. It is very much so making me reevaluate the PC/EU ideas.

Take it easy.
 
Here's another one that addresses part of your concerns/points, tensordyne, particularly the "direct proof" one (it's a bit of a counterpart to the 'CDM - observational evidence' thread):
Quarks, [OIII], neutron stars, black holes OK; CDM not OK - Huh?

The thread DD and RC reference is titled Arp objects, QSOs, Statistics. It's a pretty long thread, but you may find the later parts particularly interesting tensordyne, because they walk a staunch fan of Arp through a simple case (one of several Arp hypotheses, concerning "Karlsson peaks" and "alignments"), using his own quantitative case.
 
Last edited:
tensordyne said:
So as I do not have immediate responses to many of the critiques here that shows to me that I need to do my homework all around. I am glad I got the vigorous responses I have seen here for the BB side of the debate. I do want to make a note about one thing though related to RC's signature and the link to the NASA webpage "NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter" in it.

To me, this is not direct proof. I would say this even if I 100% believed in the BB. Direct proof to me is having dark matter particles being detected in a particle detector. Anything less then this is indirect proof.
Click to expand...
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18839-dark-matter-claims-thrown-into-doubt-by-new-data.html
Ah, in that case they now have "direct proof" that that dark matter (non baryonic brands) does *NOT* exist and some "indirect assumption" from a distant observation about how it does exist. :) It all depends on what they "assume" from the start. :)

FYI folks, I have an *extremely* busy week this week so I wont be pestering you much this week. I'm gone for 2 days and one thread is now 3 threads. I guess I'll go dig up the "Is Lambda-CDM theory woo?" thread and have some fun when I get back. :)
 
DeiRenDopa said:
tensordyne said:
Why is it that galactic red-shifts absolutely have to be cosmological? Is there no other mechanism to explain it that is maybe less cosmos shaking?
Click to expand...
(bold added)

There's a JREF thread in which I go over this last question in some detail (the answer, in short, is "no, there isn't"); I'll see if I can dig it up.
Click to expand...
Found it!

It's another DD thread, entitled Alernatives: Cosmological redshift/BBE. My tutorial begins on page 2 of the thread, and continues through to almost the end (there are several derails along the way though).

I'd be most interested in your thoughts on this tensordyne ...
 
Michael Mozina said:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18839-dark-matter-claims-thrown-into-doubt-by-new-data.html
Ah, in that case they now have "direct proof" that that dark matter (non baryonic brands) does *NOT* exist and some "indirect assumption" from a distant observation about how it does exist. :) It all depends on what they "assume" from the start. :)
Click to expand...
Sadly, it would seem that you have, once again MM, rather misunderstood what you read (even considering that you're citing a non-technical, popular source, rather than a paper published in a relevant, peer-reviewed journal).

All this article reports is the results of an experiment which seem to rule out two earlier, quite marginal, possible detections of a CDM particle.

The 'possible CDM particle parameter space' not yet explored is vast indeed.

FYI folks, I have an *extremely* busy week this week so I wont be pestering you much this week. I'm gone for 2 days and one thread is now 3 threads. I guess I'll go dig up the "Is Lambda-CDM theory woo?" thread and have some fun when I get back. :)
Click to expand...
I think your most productive work, upon your return (good luck with the hard work btw), would be in the Iron Sun with Aether batteries thread; myself I'd particularly like you to address Mozplasmas, Mozode, Mozeparation, Mozcharge, Mozwind, and Moztronium (FYI, I've been doing some literature searching on SERTS and related topics - it's fascinating stuff! - and have found quite a few more, rather pertinent, questions to ask you, about the MM solar "model").
 
DeiRenDopa said:
The 'possible CDM particle parameter space' not yet explored is vast indeed.
Click to expand...

Ah, the "dark matter of the gaps" argument (again). If they haven't ruled out every possible option, you intend to keep stuffing whatever gaps are left with CDM eh? :) Nice.

Who drug up this thread anyway? Why not the Lambda-CDM is woo thread?

FYI, I read yet another article last night about the 'mature' galaxies they keep finding at a great distance from Earth. I'll see if can't round it up for you. :)

Compared to Labmda-Gumby theory, you have nothing to complain about as it relates to EU/PC theory. You guys have more metaphysical gap filler per liter of the universe than any theory I've ever seen! :)
 
Last edited:
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=30822

Using NASA's Spitzer Space Telescope, a Texas A&M University-led team of astronomers has uncovered what may be the earliest, most distant cluster of galaxies ever detected.

The group of roughly 60 galaxies, called CLG J02182-05102, is nearly 10 billion years old -- born just 4 billion years after the Big Bang. However, it's not the size nor the age of the cluster that amazes the team of researchers led by Dr. Casey Papovich, an assistant professor in the Texas A&M Department of Physics and Astronomy and member of the George P. and Cynthia Woods Mitchell Institute for Fundamental Physics and Astronomy. Rather, it's the surprisingly modern appearance of CLG J02182-05102 that has them baffled -- a huge, red collection of galaxies typical of only present-day galaxies.

"It's like we dug an archaeological site in Rome and found pieces of modern Rome amongst the ruins," explains Papovich, lead author of the team's study to be published in Astrophysical Journal.
Click to expand...

Ooops. More nails in that Lambda-CMD coffin. The actual "predictions" of your theory have been wrong for 50 years. First you stuffed it with metaphysical inflation. Then it failed the observation test about 20 year ago so you stuffed it again with "dark energy". Any type of matter that we can't see due to the limits of our technology, you claim are composed of "non-baryonic" forms of "dark matter".

The whole Lambda-CDM theory has fallen apart at the seams, and you keep stitching it back together with invisible metaphysical friends. When did you folk intend to let that Frankenstein monstrosity die a natural empirical death anyway?
 
tensordyne said:
To me, this is not direct proof. I would say this even if I 100% believed in the BB. Direct proof to me is having dark matter particles being detected in a particle detector. Anything less then this is indirect proof. Therefore, the proof NASA has, I would still consider to be indirect proof. This is not a religious or philosophical position to hold. It is a show me the beef position to hold.
Click to expand...

If you mean in a detector like ATLAS or CMS at the LHC then this really isn't particularly direct either.
 
Michael Mozina said:
Ah, the "dark matter of the gaps" argument (again). If they haven't ruled out every possible option, you intend to keep stuffing whatever gaps are left with CDM eh? :) Nice.
Click to expand...
Nope, just (yet another) failure, by MM, to understand what he has read.

Who drug up this thread anyway? Why not the Lambda-CDM is woo thread?
Click to expand...
tensordyne, on the 14th of May (post #3274) ... who made the astute observation that:

"Looking at the general flow of this thread it seems to me that there are two parallel issues going on.
1. Attacks and defenses of the Big Bang Model.
2. Attacks and defenses of PC/EU ideas.
As a general rule of logic, attacks on the Big Bang do not support PC/EU ideas or vice versa. Just wanted to point that out."

I guess you didn't get the memo.

FYI, I read yet another article last night about the 'mature' galaxies they keep finding at a great distance from Earth. I'll see if can't round it up for you. :)

Compared to Labmda-Gumby theory, you have nothing to complain about as it relates to EU/PC theory. You guys have more metaphysical gap filler per liter of the universe than any theory I've ever seen! :)
Click to expand...
Yep, clearly you didn't get the memo! :p

Now that Zeuzzz has bailed out, once again, maybe you'd like to have a go at answering the dozens and dozens of questions about Plasma Cosmology that he seems unwilling to? I'll gladly dig them if you are.

Oh, and you seem also to have not got the memo about Plasma Cosmology not being the same as "Electric Universe" (just saying).
 
Michael Mozina said:
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=30822



Ooops. More nails in that Lambda-CMD coffin. The actual "predictions" of your theory have been wrong for 50 years. First you stuffed it with metaphysical inflation. Then it failed the observation test about 20 year ago so you stuffed it again with "dark energy". Any type of matter that we can't see due to the limits of our technology, you claim are composed of "non-baryonic" forms of "dark matter".

The whole Lambda-CDM theory has fallen apart at the seams, and you keep stitching it back together with invisible metaphysical friends. When did you folk intend to let that Frankenstein monstrosity die a natural empirical death anyway?
Click to expand...
And what, if I may be so bold to ask, does this have to do with Plasma Cosmology?

Tell me, please, that you haven't - yet again - used the logical fallacy known as "false dichotomy"?
 
DeiRenDopa said:
Oh, and you seem also to have not got the memo about Plasma Cosmology not being the same as "Electric Universe" (just saying).
Click to expand...

I guess I missed all the memo's of the last couple of days. :)

I'm definitely not going to take up this thread when I get back. If anything I'll dredge up the "Is Lambda-CMD theory woo?" thread again if the iron sun thread doesn't keep me busy. :)
 
DeiRenDopa said:
And what, if I may be so bold to ask, does this have to do with Plasma Cosmology?

Tell me, please, that you haven't - yet again - used the logical fallacy known as "false dichotomy"?
Click to expand...

You're right actually. I need to dredge up my old thread on your theories, not PC/EU theories. :)

PC/EU theory however is not threatened by the discovery of "mature" galaxies and clusters like your theory. It's much more "flexible" in that respect. It's all 100% physics, as opposed to mainstream theory which is only 4% actual physics, and 96 percent 'gap filler'.
 
tensordyne said:
So as I do not have immediate responses to many of the critiques here that shows to me that I need to do my homework all around. I am glad I got the vigorous responses I have seen here for the BB side of the debate. I do want to make a note about one thing though related to RC's signature and the link to the NASA webpage "NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter" in it.

To me, this is not direct proof. I would say this even if I 100% believed in the BB. Direct proof to me is having dark matter particles being detected in a particle detector. Anything less then this is indirect proof. Therefore, the proof NASA has, I would still consider to be indirect proof. This is not a religious or philosophical position to hold. It is a show me the beef position to hold.

So thanks for the links and arguments. It is very much so making me reevaluate the PC/EU ideas.

Take it easy.
Click to expand...
Just a couple of notes tensordyne:
Do you realize that we have never has a chunk of the Sun in a lab? Thus all our evidence for its existence are indirect by your definition. I am ready to bet that you believe that the Sun exists :) ! But I agree that the NASA title for the web page exaggerates a bit.
The "proof" in the title is wrong. There is no such thing as a proof in sceince. "Evidence" would be better.
 
tensordyne said:
I do want to make a note about one thing though related to RC's signature and the link to the NASA webpage "NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter" in it.
Click to expand...


This post addresses the assumptions in RCs sig:

Zeuzzz said:
The paper is inappropriately titled, it doesn't prove at all what it claims. Dark matter, or rather Non-baryonic matter, is by definition different from the ordinary matter observed anywhere on earth, and the paper does nothing to prove the existence of such matter.

It actually proves something quite different: that in the case of this particular pair of colliding galaxies, the greater part of the mass is associated with the galaxies and not with the hot intracluster gas. This evidence is that gravitational-lensing measures of total mass outline the concentrations of galaxies, which are physically separate from the main hot gas concentrations.

So, how do Clowe et al get from what was actually indicated to what they claimed? Only though a big assumption, which is in no way supported by their data.

The major assumption is that all of the baryonic, ordinary matter is in the form of hot plasma or bright stars in galaxies. The paper shows that the total amount of gravitating matter, as measured by gravitational lensing, does not correlate with the amount of hot plasma, as measured by x-rays. Therefore, the authors argue, the gravitating matter is instead associated with the galaxies. Since the gravitating mass is much greater than the mass in easily-visible stars, and by assumption, there is no other baryonic matter, the mass must be non-baryonic or dark matter.

The flaw in this argument is this assumption that all the ordinary matter in galaxies is in easily-visible, bright, stars. Instead, most of the mass of galaxies may well be in the form of dwarf stars, which produce very little light per unit mass, in other words have a very high mass-to-light ratio. Several studies of galaxies using very long exposures have shown that they have 'red halos', halos of stars that are mostly red dwarfs. Other studies have indicated that the halos may be filled with white dwarfs, the dead remains of burnt-out stars. In addition, there is evidence that a huge amount of mass may be tied up in relatively cool clouds of plasma that do not radiate much x-ray radiation, and would be in closer proximity to the galaxies than the hot plasma.

The Clowe papers in no way contradict these possibilities, so in no way prove the existence of dark, or non-baryonic matter. Instead, they assume that any mass associated with the galaxies that is not in bright stars is non-baryonic, dark matter.

They assume what they seek to prove.
Click to expand...


Bah this thread is like an abusive relationship.

I'm off. Byeeeeeeeeeeeeeee. :)
 
Zeuzzz: Can you provide citations for your "cool plasma" assertion

Obviously Zeuzzz has still not read the Clowe, et. al. paper as I suggested in my reply to his post.


I wll add a couple of more points:
  • A nitpick: the observations are of galaxy clusters not galaxies and especially of the the gas inbetween the galaxies (intracluster medium).
  • The paper does not state that dark matter is non baryonic.
    That is a deduction from the results. The dark matter has separated from the normal (baryonic) matter and has not heated up (it is still dark). This means that it has not collided significantly with the baryonic matter and has interacted weakly electromagnetically. This means that it is non baryonic matter.
I also noticed the "cool plasma" assertion so:
First asked 19 May 2010
Zeuzzz:
Can you provide citations for the huge amount of "cool plasma" in galaxy clusters that is enough to explain dark matter?

Why did this "cool plasma" not act like the rest of the plasma in the cluster: collide and heat up?

Relatively cool plasma also emits radiation. When astonomers look at galaxy clusters thay do this in various wavelengths. This allows them to measure that in clusters 5-20% of the visible matter is in the galaxies with the rest in the intracluster medium.

Reality Check said:
Originally Posted by Zeuzzz
The paper is inappropriately titled, it doesn't prove at all what it claims. Dark matter, or rather Non-baryonic matter, is by definition different from the ordinary matter observed anywhere on earth, and the paper does nothing to prove the existence of such matter.

It actually proves something quite different: that in the case of this particular pair of colliding galaxies, the greater part of the mass is associated with the galaxies and not with the hot intracluster gas. This evidence is that gravitational-lensing measures of total mass outline the concentrations of galaxies, which are physically separate from the main hot gas concentrations.
Click to expand...
Now you have to show that there 2 pairs of galactic clusters (and any more observations) are not typical clusters.
What papers did you you read this in Zeuzzz?

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz
So, how do Clowe et al get from what was actually indicated to what they claimed? Only though a big assumption, which is in no way supported by their data.

The major assumption is that all of the baryonic, ordinary matter is in the form of hot plasma or bright stars in galaxies. The paper shows that the total amount of gravitating matter, as measured by gravitational lensing, does not correlate with the amount of hot plasma, as measured by x-rays. Therefore, the authors argue, the gravitating matter is instead associated with the galaxies. Since the gravitating mass is much greater than the mass in easily-visible stars, and by assumption, there is no other baryonic matter, the mass must be non-baryonic or dark matter.
Click to expand...
Read the paper and understand it.
They did not assume it. It is an observation.

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz
The flaw in this argument is this assumption that all the ordinary matter in galaxies is in easily-visible, bright, stars. Instead, most of the mass of galaxies may well be in the form of dwarf stars, which produce very little light per unit mass, in other words have a very high mass-to-light ratio. Several studies of galaxies using very long exposures have shown that they have 'red halos', halos of stars that are mostly red dwarfs. Other studies have indicated that the halos may be filled with white dwarfs, the dead remains of burnt-out stars. In addition, there is evidence that a huge amount of mass may be tied up in relatively cool clouds of plasma that do not radiate much x-ray radiation, and would be in closer proximity to the galaxies than the hot plasma.
Click to expand...
The flaw in that argument is that it has been considered: Dark matter could be MACHOS but
A MACHO may be detected when it passes in front of or nearly in front of a star and the MACHO's gravity bends the light, causing the star to appear brighter in an example of gravitational lensing known as gravitational microlensing. Several groups have searched for MACHOs by searching for the microlensing amplification of light. These groups have ruled out dark matter being explained by MACHOs with mass in the range 0.00000001 solar masses to 100 solar masses. One group, the MACHO collaboration, claims to have found enough microlensing to predict the existence of many MACHOs with mass of about 0.5 solar masses, enough to make up perhaps 20% of the dark matter in the galaxy.[1] This suggests that MACHOs could be white dwarfs or red dwarfs which have similar masses. However, red and white dwarfs are not completely dark; they do emit some light, and so can be searched for with the Hubble Telescope and with proper motion surveys. These searches have ruled out the possibility that these objects make up a significant fraction of dark matter in our galaxy. Another group, the EROS2 collaboration does not confirm the signal claims by the MACHO group. They did not find enough microlensing effect with a sensitivity higher by a factor 2.[2]
Observations using the Hubble Space Telescope's NICMOS instrument showed that less than one percent of the halo mass is composed of red dwarfs.[3][4] This corresponds to a negligible fraction of the dark matter halo mass. Therefore, the missing mass problem is not solved by MACHOs.[/QUOTE]

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz
The Clowe papers in no way contradict these possibilities, so in no way prove the existence of dark, or non-baryonic matter. Instead, they assume that any mass associated with the galaxies that is not in bright stars is non-baryonic, dark matter.

They assume what they seek to prove.
Click to expand...
Read the paper and understand it.

They do not assume anything. Theu do the measurements of the visible and invisible mass and get that they areconcentrated in 2 different locations. Neither using gravitational lensing or visible light assumes that the matter being detected is dark matter.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom