Plasma Cosmology - Woo or not

[Ziggurat]

Observational evidence favors a static universe
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010arXiv1009.0953C
Cosmology and Extragalactic Astrophysics, September 5, 2010.

Sorry, but that's a fail. ALL tired light theories require blurring, which is not observed.

There are major problems with the applicability of Newtons law of gravitation

Indeed. That's why it's been supplanted by General Relativity.

This law is the sole reason why cosmology/astronomy is filled with so many unresolved problems, most notably dark matter and dark energy.

Uh, no. While galactic rotation curves don't match Newtonian gravity either, gravitational lensing is definitely a general relativity effect.

There is no definitive law for gravity at all scales.

That's another way of saying general relativity is wrong, even though you have no evidence that it is.

Newtonian gravity is accurately measured and proven with the bounds of the solar system.

Actually, Newtonian gravity is proven wrong within the bounds of the solar system. General relativity is not Newtonian.

This formula has been used to determine the mass of the Earth, we don't even know the valid range for Newtonian gravity.

Oh, but we do.

To get the mass of another planet in our solar system you have to use the value used for the Earth or sun. And to work out the tremendously important value of G you then have to use M_EG, using the mass of the Earth, under the presumption it is correct, and then other methods using the suns mass are derived again from M_EG.

No, Zeuzzz. G is obtained independently from the mass of the earth, and the mass of every other large object in the solar system can be obtained from G without reference to M_E.

So when people say that a distant object in orbit is a certain mass and they thus know the gravitational forces involved etc, this is more an assumption than a fact, depending on the value of G and the mass of the sun or earth.

Quite wrong. The mass of the earth and the sun never enter into it. Really, this is an incredibly fundamental error on your part.

 

[ben m]

All they will let on there are old, dated, wrong publications that relate to Alfven.

Alfven, a Nobel prizewinner who made major contributions to interplanetary plasma physics, had a notable plasma-cosmology theory. The fact that it existed, and was eventually proven wrong, is notable.

Five or six non-notable amateur scientists and engineers, circularly citing one another's non-notable papers, and producing something that even you, Zeuzzz, just called "hogwash", is not notable.

Please note that mainstream Big Bang alternatives have perfectly good articles. MOND and TeVeS have perfectly normal Wiki pages. Mainstream results which have the potential to modify the Big Bang---like "dark flow"---have perfectly normal articles. Challenging oddities of the CMB data, like the "Axis of Evil", get an appropriate level of discussion in the CMB article.

Why is PC different than TeVeS? Unlike TeVeS, PC is it's not a science theory; it's four or five crackpots exchanging links and big-fish stories.

 

[Zeuzzz]

Alfven, a Nobel prizewinner who made major contributions to interplanetary plasma physics, had a notable plasma-cosmology theory. The fact that it existed, and was eventually proven wrong, is notable.

You think that his disproved theories are more notable than the current theories that, based on his work, have yet to be proven wrong in any sort of peer reviewed literature?

Five or six non-notable amateur scientists and engineers, circularly citing one another's non-notable papers

I dont usually make arguments from authority, but some of the contributors to plasma cosmology theories have rather impecable credentials. I'd wager much more impressive than anyone in this thread. You've made me play this card, shame on you.


http://plasmauniverse.info/downloads/IEEE.GuestEditorialDec03.pdf

Anthony L. Peratt (S’60–M’63–SM’85–F’99) Ph.D: EE, 1971, University of Southern California, Los Angeles. MSEE, USC, 1967; UCLA, 1963-1964, BSEE, California State Polytechnic University. Staff Member, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (1972-1979); Guest Physicist, Max Planck Institut für Plasmaphysik, Garching, Germany (1975–1977); Guest Scientist, Alfvén Laboratory, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden (1985); Los Alamos National Laboratory (1981–), Applied Theoretical Physics Division, Physics Division, Associate Laboratory Directorate for Experimental Programs;

Scientific Advisor to the United States Department of Energy (1995–1999). Dr. Peratt’s research interests have included numerical and experimental contributions to high-energy density plasmas and intense particle beams; inertial confinement fusion; explosively-driven pulsed power generators; lasers; intense-power-microwave sources; particles; high energy density phenomena, new concepts in space propulsion and high performance computing , plasma cosmogony and cosmology. He has served as session organizer for space plasmas, IEEE International Conf. on Plasma Science 1987–1989; Guest Editor Transactions on Plasma Science, special issues on Space Plasmas 1986, 89, 90, 92, 2000, 03; Organizer, IEEE International Workshops on Space Plasmas, 1989, 1991, 1993, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 2003; Associate Editor Transactions on Plasma Science 1989—; Elected member of IEEE Nuclear and Plasma Science Society (NPSS) Executive Committee (ExCom), 1987–1989; 1995– 1997; GENERAL CHAIRMAN, IEEE International Conference on Plasma Science, Santa Fe, New Mexico, 1994. IEEE NPSS ExCom Vice Chairman 1997; Elected to the IEEE NPSS Administrative Committee, 1997. He holds memberships in the American Physical Society, American Astronomical Society, Eta Kappa Nu and has earned the United States Department of Energy Distinguished Performance Award, 1987, 1999; IEEE Distinguished Lecturer Award, 1993; Norwegian Academy of Science and Letters, University of Oslo Physics Department, and Norsk Hydro Kristian Birkeland Lecturer, 1995. Dr. Peratt is Author, Physics of the Plasma Universe, Springer-Verlag (1992); Editor, Plasma Astrophysics and Cosmology, Kluwer Academic Publishers (1995); Editor, Advanced Topics in Space and Astrophysical Plasmas, Kluwer Academic Publishers (1997).

http://plasmauniverse.info/downloads/IEEE.GuestEditorialDec03.pdf

Carl-Gunne Fälthammar was born in Markaryd, Sweden, on December 4, 1931. He received the degrees of Civilingenjör (graduate engineer) in 1956, Tekn. lic (approximately the Ph.D.) in 1960, and Docent (approximately Assistant Professor) in 1966, from the Royal Institute of Technology (KTH), Stockholm, Sweden. In 1969, he was appointed Associate Professor of Plasma Physics at the Royal Institute of Technology. In 1975, he succeeded Hannes Alfvén as Professor of Plasma Physics. From July 1, 1967 to June 30, 1997, he was Chairman/Director of the Department of Plasma Physics at the Royal Institute of Technology, which, since 1990, is a Division of the Alfvén Laboratory. After retiring as Director he remains scientifically active as Professor Emeritus. His research interests include fundamental aspects of plasma electrodynamics, with application to space and astrophysical plasmas, especially in the context of auroral and magnetospheric physics.

Professor Fälthammar is author or Co-Author of more than a hundred scientific articles in space and plasma physics, Co-Author with H. Alfvén of the book Cosmical Electrodynamics, Fundamental Principles (English 1963, Russian 1967, Chinese 1974, Japanese 1978) and Co-Editor with B. Hultqvist of the book Magnetospheric Physics, Achievements and Prospects (1990) Professor Fälthammar has served in several international scientific organizations, including the Executive Committee of IAGA, the Space Science Committee of the European Science Foundation, the Council of the European Geophysical Society, and the Board of the European Physical Society Plasma Physics Division. He was Topical Editor of Annales Geophysicae 1991-1995. He is currently Associate Editor of Astrophysics and Space Science, and a Member of the Editorial Board of Space Science Reviews. Since 1975, Professor Fälthammar is a Full Member of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences. He is also a Full Member of International Academy ofm Astronautics, Academia Europaea and the European Academy of Arts, Sciences and Humanities. In 1989, he was awarded an Honorary Doctor’s degree by the Faculty of Science of the University of Oulu, Finland. He is also a recipient of the 199 Golden Badge Award of the European Geophysical Society, the 1996 Basic Sciences Award of the International Academy of Astronautics and the 1998 Hannes Alfvén Medal of the European Geophysical Society.

Tim Eastman was one of the reviewers of the last PC journal.

Dr. Timothy Eastman has joined the Raytheon/ITSS contractor team supporting NSSDC and SSDOO activities at Goddard. Tim assumes the leadership of Raytheon's space physics and astrophysics groups.

Tim has had a long career as a space physics researcher and is best known for his work on magnetospheric boundary layers and the initial discovery of the Low Latitude Boundary Layer. Among his past activities were collaborations with SSDOO scientists, especially Jim Green, Shing Fung, Mona Kessel and Scott Boardsen, on analysis of data from the Hawkeye spacecraft.

In addition, he has served as program director for space plasmas at both NASA/Headquarters and at the National Science Foundation. At NASA, he played a key role, with Stan Shawhan, in initiating the ISTP program and the Space Physics Division (now Sun Earth Connections).

In recent years, Tim has had his own consulting company whose work includes a web site "representing all aspects of plasma science and technology prepared as a service for the general public as well as for the educational and research communities."

Ex director of the geophysical institute Syun-Ichi Akasofu seems to be a new member who has produced numerous publications in the last couple of Transactions on plasma science for Peratt et al.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syun-Ichi_Akasofu

Then theres birkeland that was nominated for a nobel prize 7 times, Alfven of course who did win a nobel prize, Irving Langmuir who also won a nobel prize and pretty much created the foundation for plasma physics to be applied cosmologically, and this is now getting boring.

Please note that mainstream Big Bang alternatives have perfectly good articles.

Of course they do! If a theory as popular as the Big Bang did not have variants and offshoots to try to explain away its varying issues/falsifications then it would just be a full on dogmatic religion that ignores inconsistant data. They are allowed because they are predicated on BBT in the first place. Its like protestant and catholic.

Challenging oddities of the CMB data, like the "Axis of Evil", get an appropriate level of discussion in the CMB article.

Oddly the PC explanation that can fully account for this "anomaly" with ease would not be allowed to be put on wikipedia, as its not to do with the big bang theory. Weird really, the CMB does not belong to BBT, its just part of the EM spectrum with unique properties that have been assigned extremely significant meanings by BBT.

Why is PC different than TeVeS? Unlike TeVeS, PC is it's not a science theory; it's four or five crackpots exchanging links and big-fish stories.

Weird. For a crackpot Peratts "physics of the plasma universe" book has over 100 citations from scientists from various fields, and is still used this day. Its in my library. Him and the others have recieved hundreds of citations, and have got hundreds of papers past peer review in some very prominant journals.

So, the above people are crackpots?

And lol, I guess if you dont like the message, shoot the messenger. Good form.

If they are indeed that, then I dread to think what you are.


And how can you say its not a science theory when I have shown you the predictions they made, shown you their accuracy, shown you the maths, shown you the journals their work is published in, been quite frank about what is now falsified, linked to the papers and (so far) remained civil in the face of your apparent blind ignorance?

What would make it a science theory for you? The usual?

* Makes falsifyable predictions.
* Experimental validation.
* Less free parameters than opposing theories.

What?

 

[Zeuzzz]

Sorry, but that's a fail. ALL tired light theories require blurring, which is not observed.

Technically true, but theories that have similar resultant effects can use absorption instead of scattering, which will not produce blurring, and leads to a static universe. Hubbles redshifts have nothing to do with an expanding universe, amazingly the evidence is already there.

Uh, no. While galactic rotation curves don't match Newtonian gravity either, gravitational lensing is definitely a general relativity effect.

Dont ever say definately in cosmology or astronomy where getting direct proof is nigh on impossible. Eventually you will always be wrong in some way.

There are alternative theories.

That's another way of saying general relativity is wrong, even though you have no evidence that it is.

Dont address my point then

And no its not. In the specific circumstances I gave I am totally correct. Just found this too.

Actually, Newtonian gravity is proven wrong within the bounds of the solar system.

Depends on what the velocities and GPE's involved are.

But wait. I'm just going to relive this moment for a bit.

"Newtonian gravity is proven wrong" .... even within our own solar system.



I wonder how much more deviation from the theory we can expect as NG and GR are experimentally tested further and further. Took einstein something like 10 years to write GR, I dont expect a variation of it would be any quicker (technology will help though actually)

Quite wrong. The mass of the earth and the sun never enter into it. Really, this is an incredibly fundamental error on your part.

It is an error, but by no means fundamental, as it does not actually relate to plasma cosmology at all

I have a question for you.

Is inflation experimentally falsifiable? How?

My thoughts are pretty much summed up by these snippets:

"Inflation has become a cornerstone of cosmology — an enlargement of the hot big bang theory that is often taken for granted by theorists. But its venerated position as a paradigm creates nagging doubts about its predictiveness. Could it ever be ruled out? One of its strongest advocates, Andrei Linde, has suggested that it cannot be falsified, merely superseded by a better theory"

"This elasticity has diminished the faith of the general astronomical community in inflation, and even led some researchers to question whether inflationary cosmology is a branch of science at all"[/I]

 

[sol invictus]

I wonder how much more deviation from the theory we can expect as NG and GR are experimentally tested further and further. Took einstein something like 10 years to write GR, I dont expect a variation of it would be any quicker (technology will help though actually)

So far there's no evidence for anything wrong with GR. But lots of people are looking, and it's been subjected to many tests since 1916.

Is inflation experimentally falsifiable? How?

It's highly falsifiable. If the spectrum of primordial perturbations isn't nearly flat, inflation is ruled out. If the spatial curvature of the universe isn't nearly zero, it is ruled out. If the spectrum of CMB temperature perturbations didn't have a set of regularly spaced peaks and minima with heights as predicted by the theory, it's ruled out. If the B-mode polarization of the CMB, or the E-mode and TE cross correlations don't conform to the predictions of the theory, it's ruled out. Etc. - there are more.

 

[sol invictus]

Weird. For a crackpot Peratts "physics of the plasma universe" book has over 100 citations from scientists from various fields, and is still used this day. Its in my library. Him and the others have recieved hundreds of citations, and have got hundreds of papers past peer review in some very prominant journals.

So, the above people are crackpots?

Yes. A crackpot is someone that thinks that what nearly everyone else is doing is wrong (and in return, nearly everyone else thinks what the crackpot is doing is nonsense). Those credentials - which are not impressive considering we are discussing cosmology - are irrelevant to whether or not they are crackpots. Plenty of Nobel laureates turned into crackpots.

And how can you say its not a science theory when I have shown you the predictions they made, shown you their accuracy, shown you the maths, shown you the journals their work is published in, been quite frank about what is now falsified, linked to the papers and (so far) remained civil in the face of your apparent blind ignorance?

Some time ago I challenged you to produce one - one - specific, quantitative, falsifiable prediction of PC, and (after a few weeks of waffling, mumbling, weaseling, and dodging) you gave up and failed.

"PC" is not a scientific theory. Not even close.

 

[Dancing David]

Plus PC does not violate any of the basic laws of physics like BBT

So will you tell us what laws of physics the BBT violates Zeuzzz? If you mean some straw argument about how the BBT says 'the universe came from nothing', then you are wrong.

the universe came from 'we don't know'.

 

[Zeuzzz]

Some time ago I challenged you to produce one - one - specific, quantitative, falsifiable prediction of PC, and (after a few weeks of waffling, mumbling, weaseling, and dodging) you gave up and failed.

Ah yes, if I recall correctly I ended up giving you too much information but not enough specifics, and you put me on ignore.

Wondering if you read the previous page where I clearly stated numerous predictions plasma cosmology has made and how they differ from big bang theory? Did you read any of the references so you can see that the predictions were indeed made? http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6583582&postcount=3400 Most of which have been confirmed since.

I can give you some other predictions if you want. I'm not sure if you want to see specific predictions made in the past, or future predictions?

And I challenge you Sol to produce one of the predictions of BBT in return.

And with whatever pedantry tactic you decide to attack my prediction I will graciously return the favour with your one.

 

[Dancing David]

Paradoxical as a beginning in time from nothing is, if you assume this then you can work from there very easily.

Yup the same old straw, you have nothing new Zeuzz.

I might as well find a pattern in a part of the EM spectrum thats not been studied much, assign that huge universal significance, and then combine this with light data from galaxy clusters to prove once and for all that these two tiny nit picks of data are amazingly significant on a cosmological scale, and everything else can just be explained later by more mundane local things like pulsars or stars.

...

Zeuzz, you are worse than usual, it is not a nitpick, the Hubble redshift is visible everywhere, you can't explain it. You also have never provided the means and mechanisms for any of PC to be matching the evidence.

When asked for numbers and data you run away.

So what maintains your charge seperation? Hmmmm.

 

[Zeuzzz]

the universe came from 'we don't know'.

Well its an incomplete theory then and alternatives that dont have this same problem need to be expanded upon and given funding to see where they lead.

 

[Dancing David]

Thats why I'll happily say that current plasma cosmology is, in the big picture, just as much a load of hogwash as the big bang theory.

So what silly idea do you have to explain the observed redshift Zeuzzz, every one you have presented in the past has been inadequate.

 

[Dancing David]

Technically true, but theories that have similar resultant effects can use absorption instead of scattering, which will not produce blurring, and leads to a static universe. Hubbles redshifts have nothing to do with an expanding universe, amazingly the evidence is already there.

Except you haven't shown that Zeuzzz, yet again when confronted with a detail that the theory would need to explain, you wave your hands and waffle.


The absorbtion issue, how is that working for you, I suppose you want to deny the alpha lyman forest? And all the data that does not support absorbtion as the mechanism for the redshift.

 

[sol invictus]

I can give you some other predictions if you want.

Pick one. Give us one quantitative, specific, falsifiable prediction that is specific to PC. It doesn't matter whether it's for the future or was already tested - I'd prefer the latter, but either way is OK.

It must be about cosmology, since that's the "C" in PC and the topic of this thread, and it must be specific to PC in the sense that standard BB cosmo predicts something different.

This is what you failed to do before, but you can take another shot. Remember, I only want one.

Once you've done that, we can open a new thread where I do the same for standard cosmo.

 

[Dancing David]

Well its an incomplete theory then and alternatives that dont have this same problem need to be expanded upon and given funding to see where they lead.

It would be an incomplete theory if it said it could explain the origin of the universe, it is a very accurate description of the universe for t>10^-36 seconds. If you were really interested we can talk about teh leading speculative theories of teh origin in another thread.

So your objection is that basically "I just don't like the BBT for some philosophical reason that is not in the theory'.

 

[Dancing David]

Ah yes, if I recall correctly I ended up giving you too much information but not enough specifics, and you put me on ignore.

Wondering if you read the previous page where I clearly stated numerous predictions plasma cosmology has made and how they differ from big bang theory? Did you read any of the references so you can see that the predictions were indeed made? http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6583582&postcount=3400 Most of which have been confirmed since.

I can give you some other predictions if you want. I'm not sure if you want to see specific predictions made in the past, or future predictions?

And I challenge you Sol to produce one of the predictions of BBT in return.

And with whatever pedantry tactic you decide to attack my prediction I will graciously return the favour with your one.

O whoops, Zeuzz, get sober for a few days, get some sleep and come back.

You have the burden to provide the ideas that you believe in, so far you papers that you have presented have been critiqued and found wanting every time.

THE BURDEN IS ON YOU to decide what papers and ideas YOU feel are adequate.

It is even sloppier than usual for you to say 'you pick from my laundry list', nope

The budern in one you to pick from your laundry list Zeuzzz.

Rest your brain, get some sleep, come back when you know what you think and why.

 

[Zeuzzz]

So what silly idea do you have to explain the observed redshift Zeuzzz, every one you have presented in the past has been inadequate.

"The death of the Big Bang Theory predicted by Zwicky in 1929 and proclaimed by Marmet 20 years ago is supported today by QED induced redshift of galaxy light in cosmic dust that negate Hubble's expanding Universe based Doppler shift"

http://qedradiation.scienceblog.com/tag/tired-light/

 

[Zeuzzz]

Pick one. Give us one quantitative, specific, falsifiable prediction that is specific to PC. It doesn't matter whether it's for the future or was already tested - I'd prefer the latter, but either way is OK.

On the abundance of lithium in old stars, BB nucleosynthesis clearly predicts that as we look back to stars with less and less heavy metal, more and more pristine, Li levels should converge on the abundance predicted by BBN. Plasma cosmology explains Li as the product of cosmic ray collisions with CNO in the early formation of the galaxy and thus predicts that Li abundance will be less and less with lower and lower metal abundance. Recent observations have clearly shown the later to be the case—lithium is far below the BBN predictions and for stars with less than about ½% the iron as the sun, Li abundance declines with Fe abundance.

See http://arxiv.org/abs/0805.3341v1 and http://arxiv.org/abs/0904.1448v1

Relevant papers:
Galactic Model of Element Formation
http://www.photonmatrix.com/pdf/Galactic Model of Element Formation.pdf

On The Problem Of Big bang Nucleosynthesis
http://www.photonmatrix.com/pdf/On The Problem Of Big bang Nucleosynthesis.pdf

 

[sol invictus]

On the abundance of lithium in old stars, BB nucleosynthesis clearly predicts that as we look back to stars with less and less heavy metal, more and more pristine, Li levels should converge on the abundance predicted by BBN. Plasma cosmology explains Li as the product of cosmic ray collisions with CNO in the early formation of the galaxy and thus predicts that Li abundance will be less and less with lower and lower metal abundance. Recent observations have clearly shown the later to be the case—lithium is far below the BBN predictions and for stars with less than about ½% the iron as the sun, Li abundance declines with Fe abundance.

See http://arxiv.org/abs/0805.3341v1 and http://arxiv.org/abs/0904.1448v1

Relevant papers:
Galactic Model of Element Formation
http://www.photonmatrix.com/pdf/Galactic Model of Element Formation.pdf

On The Problem Of Big bang Nucleosynthesis
http://www.photonmatrix.com/pdf/On The Problem Of Big bang Nucleosynthesis.pdf

Very well, lithium abundance it is. There is indeed a tension in BBC with Li abundances, although to find out how serious it is I will need to do some reading. Probably some other forum members can help with that.

For the PC side, you've provided two papers by Eric Lerner. Can I assume that - in your view - the theory presented in those papers is (part of) PC, and that the results in those papers were derived correctly from the theory?

 

[Dancing David]

"The death of the Big Bang Theory predicted by Zwicky in 1929 and proclaimed by Marmet 20 years ago is supported today by QED induced redshift of galaxy light in cosmic dust that negate Hubble's expanding Universe based Doppler shift"

http://qedradiation.scienceblog.com/tag/tired-light/

Um so, you quote a general science page with only two article citations? Really, I will read it later.

ETA: make that no article citations, one reference to a website that has a broken link to a preprint.

The broken pdf: http://www.lyndonashmore.com/preprintpdf.pdf

So no access to this alleged paper, and no reference for who this Lyndon Ashmore is.

No searches found for Lyndon Ashmore on arXiv, so where is this paper Zeuzzz?

 

[ben m]

"The death of the Big Bang Theory predicted by Zwicky in 1929 and proclaimed by Marmet 20 years ago is supported today by QED induced redshift of galaxy light in cosmic dust that negate Hubble's expanding Universe based Doppler shift"

http://qedradiation.scienceblog.com/tag/tired-light/

Zeuzzz, is this an actual theory that you want to stand up for? Do you want to make a statement like "In my opinion, Plasma Cosmology's best theory of redshift is the NanoQED theory; it has been examined carefully by many PC advocates and the bugs have been worked out as best as we are able---I'm prepared to argue that its details are correct, and the case for PC would be weakened if we didn't have it."? (Or make a similar statement in your own words.)

Or: is this something you found on Google five minutes ago, said "hey, looks good, I can post THIS link to answer the redshift question", and have no science opinion on whatsoever?