Plasma Cosmology - Woo or not

[Zeuzzz]

And this is related to cosmology how? Plasma yes, cosmology no.

How you can write that, directly under the cosmology links I just supplied in the above post, is just .... bizarre.

 

[Zeuzzz]

I'm pretty sure he's just mocking you.

That's not a very nice thought to plant in someones head, someone who I'm actually concerned about.

 

[Ziggurat]

How you can write that, directly under the cosmology links I just supplied in the above post, is just .... bizarre.

No, it makes perfect sense. Those other links relate to plasma cosmology. The recent work you linked to does not, but only relates to solar plasma physics.

 

[Zeuzzz]

No, it makes perfect sense. Those other links relate to plasma cosmology. The recent work you linked to does not, but only relates to solar plasma physics.

Correct.

My previous link was more addressed to the people that use the "looks like a bunny, must be a bunny" line here when I have referenced plasma physics morphologies and instabilities from laboratory experiments and showed the similarities in space phenomena.

 

[Dancing David]

How you can write that, directly under the cosmology links I just supplied in the above post, is just .... bizarre.

And I responded to a post of yours. Maybe you should get some sleep Zeuzzz...

OMG QUICK!

http://phys.org/news/2012-08-plasma-loops-solar-physics.html



I better email them the hundreds of posts in this thread by members here mocking the idea that Earth bound plasma experiments can be extrapolated to large scale space phenomenon so they are aware of what a truly stupid idea this is.

My oh my.

This thread I have a feeling is going to get continually more and more hilarious, and the reason for the hilarity is going to have diametrically opposed reasons for half the people reading it.

And this is related to cosmology how? Plasma yes, cosmology no.

No lets see, solar loops, check, plasma, check, cosmology, no check.

I suspect you are not functioning very well.

http://phys.org/news/2012-08-plasma-loops-solar-physics.html

That article is about solar sized events, it would a darn shame for you to claim that solar sized events are cosmology.

 

[Ziggurat]

Correct.

My previous link was more addressed to the people that use the "looks like a bunny, must be a bunny" line here when I have referenced plasma physics morphologies and instabilities from laboratory experiments and showed the similarities in space phenomena.

And do you think that the extent of their analysis is that they looked at the pictures? Or do you think that perhaps, just maybe, they got a lot more detailed and quantitative than that?

Because if they did, then your link doesn't support your methodology in any way.

 

[Zeuzzz]

And: Zeuzzz, Cite Alfvén's epistemic approach to cosmology paper
First asked 18th June 2012

"Since religion intrinsically rejects empirical methods, there should never be any attempt to reconcile scientific theories with religion. An infinitely old universe, always evolving, may not be compatible with the Book of Genesis. However, religions such as Buddhism get along without having any explicit creation mythology and are in no way contradicted by a universe without a beginning or end. Creatio ex nihilo, even as religious doctrine, only dates to around AD 200. The key is not to confuse myth and empirical results, or religion and science."

As quoted by Anthony L. Peratt, Dean of the Plasma Dissidents in The World and I (supplement to the Washington Times, May 1988) p. 196.


I really thought that by now, after nearly hundreds of pages in this thread, you would have read some of the previous links I have supplied written by Alfven?

Ya know, the man who won that prize thingy. Now what was it called. Nobel prize maybe?

I don't know where to start, he wrote dozens of texts on the epistemic issues of cosmology and plasma cosmology, these maybe a good starting point.



Atom, man and the universe; the long chain of complications

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1969amul.book.....A&db_key=AST


Plasma physics applied to cosmology (Cosmological plasma physics, considering matter, antimatter, electrodynamics, ambiplasma, annihilation and heavy nuclei)

http://md1.csa.com/partners/viewrec...ied+to+cosmology"&uid=788003575&setcookie=yes

Plasma physics, space research, and the origin of the solar system (Space plasma physics, considering solar system origin)

http://md1.csa.com/partners/viewrec...cid=A7145169AH&q=&uid=791999434&setcookie=yes

Relations between Cosmic and Laboratory Plasma Physics

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1975NYASA.257..179A&db_key=AST

Cosmology - Myth or science

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1976Rech....7..610A&db_key=AST

Present-day general-relativistic models and conjectures in cosmology are compared to prescientific models and myths. The Big Bang expanding-universe model is challenged as not empirically confirmed (with respect to nucleogenesis, predicted isotropy and homogeneity of the universe, mean density of matter in the universe, redshift data, isothermal background radiation), as a dogma paralleling Christian mythology, and as analogous to the Ptolemaic system in the response of its supporters to disconfirming evidence. Overreliance on general-relativistic mathematization at variance with physical significance, and pushing of conjectures into reaches of space and (past) time beyond possibilities of validation and confirmation are noted as cosmological mythologizing factors. Rival cosmological models (continued creation of matter, steady-state universe) are not endorsed.

Cosmology: Myth or Science? (2)

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1977cht..conf....1A&db_key=AST

How Should We Approach Cosmology?

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1978ppeu.book....9A&db_key=AST

Cosmic plasma

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1981copl.book.....A&db_key=AST

Cosmogonic scenario

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1985STIN...8616175A&db_key=AST

Plasma universe

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1986plun.rept.....A&db_key=PHY

The plasma universe

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1986PhT....39i..22A&db_key=AST

Model of the plasma universe

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1986ITPS...14..629A&db_key=AST

Cosmology in the plasma universe

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1987STIN...8814053A&db_key=AST

Criteria a cosmological theory must satisfy in order to be acceptable in the plasma Universe are considered. Matter-antimatter symmetry, and Klein's cosmological model are discussed. Prophetic and actualistic approaches to adopting Big Bang cosmology to the plasma Universe are assessed. Traditional Big Bang theory leads to difficulties due to the prophetic nature of its predictions. Actualistic approaches, extrapolating backwards from present conditions lead to increasing uncertainty the further they go. It is stressed, however that the Hubble expansion was caused by annihilation in a large region (1 billion light years) called Bigger Big Bang.

The new paradigm in cosmic plasma physics
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1981plas.work....3A&db_key=AST

If you do not have access to the full texts I have every single plasma cosmology related paper written buy any author in an archive, but due to copyright issues of journals, they will have to be via PM request only. I will happily supply anyone with any text they desire if they lack the sufficient academic privileges.

 

[Reality Check]

I really thought that by now, after nearly hundreds of pages in this thread, you would have read some of the previous links I have supplied written by Alfven?

I have read all of the previous links that you have supplied and many other Alfvén papers.
The questiuon you have not still answered is:
Zeuzzz, Cite Alfvén's epistemic approach to cosmology paper
First asked 18th June 2012

None of your links are about a "epistemic approach to cosmology".

They are about

• Plasma physics that was wrongly applied to cosmology by Alfvén (his debunked Plasma Cosmology, not the woo that is plasma cosmology, plasma cosmology does not exist!).
• Some opinion pieces by Alfvén .
• An idotically outdated quote ("with respect to nucleogenesis, predicted isotropy and homogeneity of the universe, mean density of matter in the universe, redshift data, isothermal background radiation") which even more idiotically compares the Big Bang theory with Christian mythology.

So far all you have is the standard scientific method (not any "epistemic approach") applied to cosmology to produce an invalid theory that has been debunked for decades.

 

[Reality Check]

Zeuzzz, Do you know that the scale of cosmology is billions > that of solar physics

OMG QUICK!

http://phys.org/news/2012-08-plasma-loops-solar-physics.html

OMG THE IGNORANCE!
You had better email them about your delusions about hundreds of posts in this thread by members here stating the standard physics that Earth bound plasma experiments cannot be extrapolated to large scale space phenomenon.
They might be interested to know how you got so ignorant as to be deluded into thinking that solar physics is on a cosmological scale !

But let us see if you can admit to what may be a simple mistake:
Zeuzzz,
Do you know that the scale of cosmology is billions of times bigger than that of solar physics?

 

[Reality Check]

My previous link was more addressed to the people that use the "looks like a bunny, must be a bunny" line here when I have referenced plasma physics morphologies and instabilities from laboratory experiments and showed the similarities in space phenomena.

That is a lie.
You referenced images and asserted that an uncited X-ray spectrum shows the morphology of a huge unipolar inductor.

Looks like the xray spectrum shows the morphology of a huge Unipolar inductor? Yes.
Is it a bunny? No

Looks like Zeuzzz making an unsupported assertion about an uncited x-ray spectrum. Yes.
Looks like Zeuzzz making an unsupported assertion about the uncited x-ray spectrum from a unipolar inductor. Yes.
Looks like Zeuzzz making an unsupported assertion about the comparison between these two spectra. Yes.

Is a Zeuzzz bunny - yes.

The science is that the magnetospheres of pulsars (not the actual pulsars) have been modeled as unipolar inductors in the past.

Zeuzzz, you do know that it is standard astrophysics to model pulsar magnetospheres as unipolar inductors and this has nothing to to with the scientific woo that is plasma cosmology?

For example: The magnetospheres of pulsars, Lasota, J. P. (1976) citing a 1969 paper !

 

[Ziggurat]

[qimg]http://a4.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/488370_377784655628290_824061933_n.jpg[/qimg]

 

[Reality Check]

Zeuzzz, look at this post by Ziggurat

But you can't just scale up any experiment with plasma and expect it to remain relevant to a given plasma system

Are you still ignorant of what kinds of space plasma can actually be experimented on with scaled plasmas in the lab?

FYI: Only the ionosphere and the exosphere can be scaled to laboratory size.

 

[Reality Check]

Zeuzzz, Are you still ignorant about the invalidity of Plasma Cosmology

Birkeland It was more what his work implied that inspired Alfven et al to develop the actual theories, maths, plasma modelling and predictions

Why should anyone want to read about the "theories, maths, plasma modeling and predictions" of a debunked theory that has nothing to do with the scientific woo that is plasma cosmology?

Zeuzzz, Are you still ignorant about the invalidity of Plasma Cosmology?

The insanity of citing an invalid theory like Plasma Cosmology in support of a thing that does not even exist (plasma cosmology does not exist!) should be obvious even to you.

 

[Reality Check]

As ben m posted on 21st December 2010

Originally Posted by sol invictus
No Zeuzzz, it doesn't work that way. You asserted that PC is more predictive than the BB. Now it's time to back that up. So you pick one prediction of PC, we'll take a look.
...

And most importantly, you have to say - in advance, before we analyze it - that it is a core part of PC, that the success of PC depends significantly on it, and that if it were falsified, it would falsify or significantly weaken the case for PC as a theory of cosmology.

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz
Lithium abundance.

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz
So, looks like maybe PC prediction for Li abundances are probably as bad as the Big Bangs predictions.

Based on this I might change it to the predictions made for other elements, helium would be the obvious one, but carbon or deuterium would be fair game. I reckon 4He.

That pretty much sums it up.

The only prediction from the core part of PC that Zeuzzz can come up in almost 2 years is a guess that the abundance of 4He would be one.
That really sums it up - Zeuzzz seems to have a "religious" (not evidence based) faith in plasma cosmology.

 

[Zeuzzz]

I did not say that the picture has anything to do with cosmology. It was addressed, as I said before, to the people that have ridiculed the idea that laboratory plasma physics can be extrapolated to space science. The people that hand wave away Birkelands work. Or Bostiks work. Or Alfvens work. Or Peratts work.

Maxwells laws are generally scale invariant and translationally invariant. We don't really know the extent to which we can extrapolate them, and to what magnitude they apply in plasma, but we can have a good guess from the scales we have studied on Earth. I'm sorry if some scientists have extrapolated these ideas to scales that highly annoy you.

I sound like a broken record now.

Only because people seem to have ear plugs in.

99.999% of the universe is matter in the plasma state, a fact not realized till a decade or so ago. Not Solid Liquid or Gas. It would be foolish to think advanced plasma properties can not be applied universally in ways previously not considered, and our old models need to start to take this into account. The need for dark matter and other constructs is good reason to consider alternative theories.

"It is an embarrassment that the dominant forms of matter in the universe remain hypothetical!"

- Jim Peebles

 

[Zeuzzz]

[qimg]http://images.cryhavok.org/d/13659-1/LOLcat+-+Do+Science.jpg[/qimg]

Birkeland has not much relevance to plasma cosmology. It was more what his work implied that inspired Alfven et al to develop the actual theories, maths, plasma modelling and predictions.

Read them yet?

Confirmation Of Radio Absorption.pdf
http://www.photonmatrix.com/pdf/Confirmation Of Radio Absorption.pdf
Force Free Magnetic Filaments.pdf
http://www.photonmatrix.com/pdf/Force Free Magnetic Filaments.pdf
Galactic Model of Element Formation.pdf
http://www.photonmatrix.com/pdf/Galactic Model of Element Formation.pdf
Intergalactic Radio Absorption And The COBE Data.pdf
http://www.photonmatrix.com/pdf/Intergalactic Radio Absorption And The COBE Data.pdf
Magnetic Self Compression No 1.pdf
http://www.photonmatrix.com/pdf/Magnetic Self Compression No 1.pdf
Magnetic Self Compression No 2.pdf
http://www.photonmatrix.com/pdf/Magnetic Self Compression No 2.pdf
Magnetic Vortex Filaments.pdf
http://www.photonmatrix.com/pdf/Magnetic Vortex Filaments.pdf
On The Problem Of Big bang Nucleosynthesis.pdf
http://www.photonmatrix.com/pdf/On The Problem Of Big bang Nucleosynthesis.pdf
Plasma Model an Alternative To The Big Bang.pdf
http://www.photonmatrix.com/pdf/Plasma Model an Alternative To The Big Bang.pdf
Radio Absorption By The Intergalactic Medium.pdf
http://www.photonmatrix.com/pdf/Radio Absorption By The Intergalactic Medium.pdf
The Case Against The Big Bang.pdf
http://www.photonmatrix.com/pdf/The Case Against The Big Bang.pdf
Technical Paper on Plasma Cosmology and Big Bang
http://bigbangneverhappened.org/p27.htm

The following are all linked to directly in PDF form in this post.

Evolution of Colliding Plasmas, A. Peratt, J. Green, and D. Nielsen, Physical Review Letters, 44, pp. 1767-1770, 1980 (248K).

Microwave Generation from Filamentation and Vortex Formation within Magnetically Confined Electron Beams, A. L. Peratt and C. M. Snell, Physical Review Letters, 54, pp. 1167-1170, 1985

Evolution of the Plasma Universe: I. Double Radio Galaxies, Quasars, and Extragalactic Jets, A. L. Peratt, IEEE Trans. Plasma Sci. Vol. PS-14, N.6, pp.639-660, December 1986.

Evolution of the Plasma Universe: II. The Formation of Systems of Galaxies, A. L. Peratt, IEEE Trans. Plasma Sci. Vol. PS-14, N.6, pp.763-778, December 1986

The Role of Particle Beams and Electrical Currents in the Plasma Universe, A. L. Peratt, Laser and Particle Beams, vol.6, part.3, pp.471-491, 1988.

Synchrotron radiation spectrum for galactic-sized plasma filaments Peter, W.; Peratt, A.L. Plasma Science, IEEE Transactions on Volume 18, Issue 1, Feb 1990

Equilibrium of Intergalactic Currents, B. E. Meierovich and A. L. Peratt, IEEE Trans. Plasma Sci. 20, p.891, 1992

The Evidence For Electrical Currents in Cosmic Plasma, A. L. Peratt, IEEE Trans. Plasma Sci. 18, p.26 (1990)

Plasma and the universe: large scale dynamics, filamentation, and radiation Astrophysics and Space Science Volume 227, Numbers 1-2 / May, 1995

Electric space: Evolution of the plasma universe Astrophysics and Space Science, Volume 244, Issue 1-2, pp. 89-103, 1996

Advances in Numerical Modeling of Astrophysical and Space Plasma, A. L. Peratt, Astrophysics and Space Science, Volume 256, Numbers 1-2 / March, 1997 [not full text, PM me if you want the full paper]

Advances in Numerical Modeling of Astrophysical and Space Plasma, Part II Astrophysical Force Laws on the Large Scale. A. L. Peratt, Astrophysics and Space Science Volume 256, 1998






Test me.

I dare you.

See bolded.

?

 

[Ziggurat]

I did not say that the picture has anything to do with cosmology. It was addressed, as I said before, to the people that have ridiculed the idea that laboratory plasma physics can be extrapolated to space science.

I don't know anyone who thinks they can't be. But it's not a trivial process. You can't just look at two pictures and say, "that's the same thing!" But that's largely the extent of what you're doing.

 

[Reality Check]

I did not say that the picture has anything to do with cosmology. It was addressed, as I said before, to the people that have ridiculed the idea that laboratory plasma physics can be extrapolated to space science. The people that hand wave away Birkelands work. Or Bostiks work. Or Jim Peebles work.

Once again you are ignotant or deluded. People here have never stated that laboratory plasma physics cannot be extrapolated to space science. We have pointed out what anyone who looks up plasma scaling will fiond out. Laboratory plasma physics cannot be extrapolated to all space science for the simple reason that all plasmas that occur in space cannot be dupolicated in the lab!

No one "hand-waves away" Birkeland's work - it was great work on the cause of the Earth's aurora.
No one "hand-waves away" Bostiks work - he was a pioneer in plasma physics.
No one "hand-waves away" Jim Peebles work -he is an eminent cosmologist.
ETA:
No one "hand-waves away" Alfvén's work -he was a pioneer in plasma physics. His Plasma Cosmology theory has been debunked for a while.
No one "hand-waves away" Peratts work -he is an expert in plasma physics. His theory on galaxy formation is abysmally wrong: Anthony Peratt's Plasma Model of Galaxy Formation.

Maxwells laws are generally scale invariant and translationally invariant.

And another display of ignorance.
Plasmas do not just have Maxwells laws in them, they also have Newton's laws in them. Plasma are not scale invariant or even translationally invariant.

99.999% of the universe is matter in the plasma state, a fact not realized till a decade or so ago.

And even more ignorance!
The universe was considered to be 99.999% plasma for many decades before it was discovered a decade or so ago that only 3.999% of the universe is plasma.

The plasma cosmology stupidity though is that they assume that because the universe if "99.999%' plasma that plasma physics has to dominate. This reveals a fundamental problem with them because the same "logic" and the fact "100.000%" of the universe is matter means that gravity dominates!

Ending your post with an uncited, without context quote from Jim Peebles is quite dumb, Zeuzzz.

 

[Zeuzzz]

The universe was considered to be 99.999% plasma for many decades before it was discovered a decade or so ago that only 3.999% of the universe is plasma.

Reference for this figure?

This seems more a volumetric measure than one of actual matter and density.

 

[Ziggurat]

Reference for this figure?

This seems more a volumetric measure than one of actual matter and density.

Uh, no. It's a measure of the mass-energy fraction of the universe. I'm sure you can find a source, once you understand what he means.