Another Problem With Big Bang?

[BeAChooser]

Really? Lets see which of these are magical?

Quote:
- singularities and then black holes, which according to the Big Bang believers are in almost every large cosmological object we see out there,

Predicted independantly of the Big Bang theory. Accepted to actually exist by basically everyone. The wealth of evidence is overwhelming.

Whether they were developed independently of Big Bang or not and whether practically everyone accepts them or not has nothing to do with whether or not they are magical. You claim a wealth of evidence but it is ALL inferred from observations that plasma cosmologists say they can explain with ordinary physics. Most people believe in God. God has about the same degree of evidence as black holes.

Also, nothing to do with the Big Bang.

Yeah, you folks keep repeating that nonsense. How curious that Big Bang cosmology requires that just about every large object in space have a black hole in it to explain observations that plasma cosmologists say ordinary physics we can reproduce here on earth can explain.

Quote:
- dark matter. Actually, a variety of different kinds of magic they call *matter*, but which have properties that lie completely outside ordinary experience and haven't been detected, only inferred,

Firstly, predicted outside of the Big Bang theory. Get your facts straight to start with. Secondly, what's your point?

Oh that's right, it has nothing to do with Big Bang cosmology even though the whole universe must now be filled with it for Big Bang cosmology to explain the observations. That you don't even see my point says much about the sad state of cosmology and astrophysics today.

Quote:
- dark energy. Can you even define what it is? Yet supposedly 76% of the universe's mass consists of it and again it is only inferred from the behavior of most distant of objects (many of which, if Arp is right, may not be all that distant afterall),

Again, how does this make it magic? Just because it doesn't make sense to you?

I asked you to define what it is. Can you?

Quote:
- inflation. Do you have any notion of what caused it ... an explanation that doesn't involve magic or some other unseen, unseeable entity?,

The answer "we don't know yet" is generally acceptable.

What? After nearly 30 years you don't know what it is yet? You just accept it. What *faith* you have.

I suggest you look up "magic" in the dictionary, because so far you've failed to present anything magical.

http://www.answers.com/topic/magic?cat=biz-fin "magic - The art that purports to control or forecast natural events, effects, or forces by invoking the supernatural." That seems to fit nicely.

Quote:
- 11 dimensional (or is it 12?) space and strings. Even the string theorists admit that strings may never be seen,

So?

A claim by string theorists that strings may be too small to ever be seen means the claim that strings exist can not be falsified. Is that science?

Quote:
- magnetic properties that no lab on earth has ever seen and that violate established laws of physics. I covered this in one of my last few posts.

I fail to see what this has to do with the Big Bang, to be honest,

I know, that's a problem. You don't think anything is related to the big bang. Not the singularity. Not the numerous gnomes that have been introduced to explain what has happened since the big bang. Nothing.

but once again, our inability to understand does not make it wrong.

False. In this case, physicists (and I leave astrophysicists out of that group) do understand magnetic fields and plasmas. And what astrophysicists claim as magnetic phenomena to explain what they see are just fantasies. They have NEVER been observed or reproduced on earth in several hundred years of studying magnetic fields. Go ahead, show us ONE demonstration of reconnecting magnetic fields in a lab here on earth.

You are making a huge leap of inference

*I'm* making a huge leap of inference? ROTFLOL! Says the guy using inference to presume the existence of singularities, black holes, inflation, dark matter (in all it's flavors), dark energy and new magnetic field physics. Priceless!!!

Quote:
And I'm probably missing a few others. In fact, in this thread I've provided sources giving examples where when faced with yet another unexplained observation that didn't fit the current Big Bang kludge, the first tendency of the astrophysics and big bang cosmology community is to speculate about yet another unseen force with magical properties.

So? Are you suggesting that theories shouldn't be changed if they do not fit the observed data?

Not by introducing more magic when scientists haven't even resolved ANY of the mountain of magic they've already introduced to explain Big Bang.

Do you even understand how science is undertaken?

Do you?

Quote:
See the thread's article where a new force is invoked to salvage Dark Matter. Another of the sources proposed an object called a MECO, which ignores everything that plasma physicists have been trying to tell the big bang and astrophysics community for half a century.

Which you just assume is correct.

But I don't just assume it's correct. I can find numerous sources that validate what plasma cosmologist say about plasmas, electric currents and magnetic fields.

Until plasma cosmology can explain everything the Big Bang does, and is as successful as the Big Bang is, you don't really have a leg to stand on.

That's a rather tired canard since plasma cosmology can already explain more than Big Bang does. And without invoking spirits and without having spent billions and billions of research dollars.

Quote:
If after 30 years and many, many billions of dollars, we still haven't detected any of the primary dark matter entities that have been postulated, that should tell begin to tell us something. If we are rational. And if entities are so far away in space and time that for all intents and purposes they can't be directly seen or experimented on, then for all intent and purpose, they are indeed unfalsifiable. We might as well postulate God or gnomes are responsible.

What nonsense. There is more matter then we can observe in galaxies.

You only INFER there is more matter based on observations of motions that plasma cosmologists can explain without introducing a zoo full of magic particles, forces, interactions and events.

Some of the sources I've cited about plasma cosmology were peer reviewed in prestigious astronomical journals (of course, that was before the Big Bang priesthood started getting worried about the truth of what plasma cosmologists say).

Go ahead, roll your eyes. That doesn't change the fact that they were peer reviewed in prestigious astronomical journals. They passed peer review.

Quote:
Some of the books were written by Nobel Prize winners in the field they were writting about. Others are from peer reviewed plasma physics journals. And it would be wise to keep in mind that if the peer view process is corrupted by the use of deductive method (that's what religions and Big Bang theorists rely on), then relying only on articles in peer reviewed sources may lead you astray.

Oh noes! Y'know, you are sounding more and more like a CT nutter.

And you are sounding more and more like someone who has no rational response to the presented facts and logic. All you can do is dream up another magic particle or force to explain the next problem encountered in your theory and insist it's all true.

Quote:
That has been the warning of plasma cosmologists for 30 years (about the same time the mysterious Dark *Matter* has been missing). A warning that has gone unheaded. Read the quote from Alfven about reconnecting magnetic fields in one my of my last posts, and you'll get an idea of how far astray from real science the peer review process has taken Big Bang astrophysics.

There is no big conspiricy.

Well the Church in Galileo's time felt the same way ...

 

[BeAChooser]

And what I said is that if you don't even know special relativity you can't possibly understand cosmology.

And, of course, what you didn't say but I'm sure you believe is if one understands relativity, one must automatically accept Big Bang?

I hate to tell you this, but Einstein rejected the notion of the singularity. In Physical Review, July 1, 1935, Einstein and Rosen stated "For these reasons writers have occasionally noted the possibility that material particles might be considered as singularities of the field. This point of view, however, we cannot accept at all. For a singularity brings so much arbitrariness into the theory that it actually nullifies its laws." And further that "Every field theory, in our opinion, must therefore adhere to the fundamental principle that singularities of the field are to be excluded." He called black holes, "Schwartzschild singularities", and wrote in a paper in the Annals of Mathematics in October 1939 that "The essential result of this investigation is a clear understanding as to why the 'Schwarzschild singularities' do not exist in physical reality."

He knew that his equations predicted a singularity at the instant of the Big Bang, but denied that a singularity actually occurred, claiming, "For large densities of field and of matter, the field equations and even the field variables which enter into them will have no real significance. One may not therefore assume the validity of the equations for very high density of field and of matter, and one may not conclude that the 'beginning of the expansion' [of the universe] must mean a singularity in the mathematical sense. All we have to realize is that the equations may not be continued over such regions.".

 

[BeAChooser]

The fact that he references plasma cosmology papers which have been published in peer reviewed journals kind of refutes that point.

Not necessarily. THe papers are from decades ago before, perhaps, the Big Bang community realized the peril that plasma cosmology poses. Let's look at a more recent example:

From http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/...p?p=5648&sid=5a12cf1d691432b37d7fb85e70f768aa:

A little history may be in order. Late on July 3, 2005, the Thunderbolts Picture of the Day registered the predictions of Wal Thornhill and colleagues concerning Deep Impact, including: the high energy of impact catching NASA by surprise; an advanced flash; lack of surface water NASA scientists expected; sharply sculpted surface; loss of impactor signal due to electrical interference before impact; rearrangement of "jets" after impact. These predictions were, of course, in stark contrast to NASA expectations, and most could only appear ridiculous.

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/050704predictions.htm

Comet theory is in shambles. But NASA has shown no interest in the one model that would not only resolve the contradictions, but inspire unprecedented national interest in space exploration. And when you consider that the solution requires nothing more than acknowledging the obvious electric field of the Sun, how could anyone fail to see the scale of the tragedy?

Before the Galileo probe arrived at Jupiter, NASA claimed that the plumes the earlier Voyager probe had observed rising from Jupiter's moon Io were volcanoes. One individual, Wal Thornhill, disputed the claim and registered three predictions in advance:

1. the vents of the "volcanic" plumes will be much hotter than lava;

2. the plumes are the jets of cathode arcs, and they do not explode from a volcanic vent but move around and erode the periphery of dark areas (called "lava lakes" by planetary geologists);

3. the "lava lakes" themselves are merely the solid surface of Io etched electrically by cathode arcs and exposed from beneath the sulfur dioxide "snow" deposited by continuous discharge activity. Therefore, they will not reveal the expected heat of a recent lava flow.

Well, the probe arrived and its sensors were swamped by the plume temperatures, producing whiteouts on the image. So NASA scientist colored the whiteouts to make them red and yellow to mimic lave spouts. The whiteouts were all strategically located at the edges of the so-called "lava lakes," as predicted, and these dark floors of the supposed lava lakes were cold, as also predicted. And, as predicted, no volcanic vent could be found. Additionally, it was discovered that the plumes emitted ultraviolet light, a signature of electric discharge. And most astonishing, it was discovered that the plume of the "volcano" Prometheus had moved 80 kilomters since imaging by Voyager--the very thing one would expect of an electric arc, and the last thing expected of a volcano! ("Volcanos always go south for the winter, mused one plasma scientist in our group.")

Of course, Wal was working with a theme first noted by astrophysicist Thomas Gold, later to be substantiated by Anthony Peratt and Alex Dessler--that the plumes were electric discharge. While I do not mention names of scientists I'm in contact with, now that Gold has passed on I can tell you I had some extremely interesting conversations with him in 2001, just ahead of an international conference we sponsored in Laughlin, Nevada. He told me that, after his article suggesting the Io plumes were electric discharge, Science magazine had published a critique of his argument by Shoemaker and others. The critics argued that the temperatures (as measured from Hawaii, where there would be no possibility of suffient resolution) did not detect the heat required of electric discharge! Gold had written a rejoinder to point out the obvious, but Science refused to publish it.

I found it very interesting that, once the Galileo probe arrived at Jupiter and detected literally everything expected of electric discharge, no one at NASA felt any obligation to reconsider the possibility first noted by the esteemed astrophysicist many years earlier. Even today, there is no mention of electric discharge. This is one of hundreds of reasons that I find deliberate efforts to obstruct the flow of significant information so offensive."

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/bol.htm "In 2002 two young Spanish astronomers discovered that the luminous filament between the two galaxies contains two quasar-like objects with even higher redshifts. The Astrophysical Journal and Nature refused to publish this observation, and it was finally published in Astronomy and Astrophysics, a peer-reviewed but less ‘prestigious’ journal. Furthermore, requests to make follow-up observations with the Chandra x-ray satellite and the southern Very Large Telescope were turned down by the allocation committees."

So what has happened is that those who advocate plasma cosmology and plasma related explanations of observed phenomena are no longer even trying astrophysical publications but instead are publishing their work in journals related to plasma and electromagnetic phenomena.

 

[BeAChooser]

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
Second, read the *peer reviewed* paper I linked and quoted regarding observations investigating whether the light from the object has the appearance of having come through the dust that would surely have been encountered in the core region of that type of galaxy. They concluded it had not. Now would you like to post a *peer reviewed* paper to challenge that data based conclusion?

I am no an astronomer, so I will not make a guess.

I'm not asking you to make a guess. I'm asking you to provide a peer reviewed paper challenging the data and conclusions set forth in a peer reviewed paper before simply dismissing what is concluded, as you have done.

 

[BeAChooser]

Considering that a sustained fusion reaction requires extremely high temperatures and pressures, recreating those on the surface of the Earth is something of a problem.

In the interior of stars, not so much.

It's not a problem of not reaching sufficiently high temperature and pressure. Both sun-like temperatures and pressures have been achieved here on earth in fusion experiments. The problem is one of keeping the plasma stable long enough for fusions to occur in sufficient numbers. In 50 years they've not been able to overcome this problem despite uncounted billions spent in research. Some plasma cosmologists and plasma physicists now say the problem is inherent to plasma and thus even the pressure and PRESUMED temperature of the core will not help. We have tried all manner of techniques to make the plasma's stable. Yet, we just ASSUME they are in the interior of the sun. Why?

Meanwhile, we just disregard the fact that in order to even begin to see the solar phenomena that we can see, the standard model proponents have to invent new magnetic physics that have never been seen or reproduced on earth and that experts in plasmas and magnetic fields say are fantasy.

 

[BeAChooser]

I apologise to BeAChoser if this discussion has derailed his/her thread.

No need to apologize. But a lesser man than I would have complained.

 

[BeAChooser]

BeAChooser, you are absolutely right: I am ignoring just about everything you say! Why? Because I'm not interested in debating you!

There you go folks. This is the response that plasma cosmologists have gotten for nearly 30 years from the Big Bang community.

The correctness of theories is not settled through rhetoric, but through evidence.

I've provided plenty of evidence. You just don't want to discuss it, so you ignore it. Because you know where discussing it would lead.

 

[Yllanes]

You are only quoting from places like space.com and similar, never from actual papers, so you are getting only strawmen and poorly worded results.

Astrophysicists are not claiming the jets of matter and radiation seen coming from regions they claim contain black holes are coming from the black hole itself. The classic theory of black holes is that nothing escapes the event horizon. What they are claiming is that falling matter is heating up to high temperatures and emitting radiation and charged matter that create magnetic fields.

That's what I said.

As the above link notes "Black hole jets are one of the great paradoxes in astronomy," said Rita Sambruna of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md. "How is it that black holes, so efficient at pulling matter in, can also accelerate matter away at near light speed? We still don't know how these jets form, but at least we now have a solid idea about what they're made of."

Another thing is that sensible researches recognise they don't understand everything perfectly, while you seem to imply plasma cosmology is a complete, finished theory, that already explains everything. Wrong. If you quote from this kind of website you are always going to get overhyped claims, making the result that has been obtained seem more of a breakthrough than what it actually is. Also, when they say that we still don't know how these jets form it is because they are held to a very high standard. Until the theory is completely refined and has been verified observationally they are not sure and say so.

"It's a bit of a challenge to understand how this black hole got enough mass to reach its size."

How does plasma cosmology explain this precise object? You are always claiming it explains everything, but have provided no hard data. We don't exactly know how these supermassive black holes form, but we know they are there.

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/astronomy/v4641_microquasar_000114.html "The dramatic tantrum last fall from an often-overlooked star has betrayed the existence of the nearest black hole yet discovered in the Milky Way -- one that should be put in a class all its own
[...]
But plasma cosmologists don't have problems with observations like these. They fit right into the model that they developed decades ago.

Then provide some link where they explain this object. If mainstream researcehs can't explain all of its features and plasma cosmology can, you could easily get a paper published just describing this particular object.

Where have these astronomers been? Plasma physicists demonstrated in the laboratory with plasma focus devices and computer models decades ago that black holes weren't necessary to create these jets. See what I mean about the Big Bang astrophysics community being blind to anything that doesn't involve gravity, folks?

This is ridiculous. Everyone knows from a long time ago that neutron stars and similar objects create jets (have you heard the term pulsar?) Nobody doubted this. This is again a case of reading an overhyped news source. Probably the research described perfected some computations and gave better quantitative predictions, but the idea wasn't new for anyone.

Saying that neutron stars can generate jets is not the same as saying all jets can be generated by neutron stars, though.

[snip descrption of magnetic fields with no formulas and in layman's terms]

Alfven would be spinning and twisting in his grave at this description of plasma, magnetic fields and their behavior.

You haven't shown were they modify any laws of electromagnetism. Do it or withdraw your claim.

"Plasma takes weak strands of magnetic field along for the ride"? "Plasma tends to stick to field lines, effectively forming strings of plasma." That is utter nonsense.

On the contrary it is a theorem in ideal magnetohydrodynamics that all fluid elements initially located on a magnetic field line will still be located on that line after an arbitray motion. This is a simple result of plasma physics and doesn't require general relativity, curved spaces or any change to Maxwell's equations.

If you didn't know this most simple of results, then you clearly don't know anything about plasma physics, because this is in every textbook.

I'm tired of all these examples, because they are pointless. They just show that there is still work to be done, not that there is anything wrong with what we have. With the last claim that particles sticking to field lines is 'utter nonsense' you have lost what little credibility you had. If you want to be taken seriously again, please provide evidence for any of your claims

• Plasma cosmology can explain all the details of objects that are still not fully modeled in general relativity.
• Plasma cosmologists are being repressed and barred from publishing (this is trivially false, as Wollery pointed out, because you have cited papers in journals).
• Mainstream physicists violate Maxwell's equations (you need a link to a paper that does that, it is not enough with a series of analogies for laymen).

So once again, we have another magical gnome to add to all the others.

The moment of the singularity cannot be described with current physics. This was my starting point, so stop suggesting you have made us fall in some clever trap.

The moment of the singularity is not part of the Big Bang. But I thought Cuddles claimed that anything after that moment wasn't part of the theory. Perhaps you two should consult one another.

This doesn't make sense. Cuddles said the same as I did, that the fact that the universe is expanding is based on observations and implies that the universe was smaller in the past.

If the electric model for stars is correct (and it seems to be the only one that actually explains the observations), stars will be charged bodies.

Well, they are not, so the premise for all that follows is already wrong. If stars were charged bodies, we would know.

But according to what I've read, physicists do not expect that black holes with a significant electric charge will be formed in nature because the electromagnetic repulsion would be about 40 orders of magnitude greater than the gravitational attraction. That makes sense.

Black holes can have charge. Charged black holes are called Reisser-Nördstrom black holes. The typical condition is that GM^2 > Q^2, with Q the electric charge. We would identify stars with such charge

 

[ynot]

The mathematics behind general relativity do clearly define what a "straight line" means. For example, on the surface of the earth, a straight line between two points is a geodesic (it follows the curve of the earth). Thus a triangle - which is made by connecting three straight line segments - can have interior angles that sum to greater 180 degrees. Each line segment is perfectly straight, on the curved surface of the sphere. Change the geometry and you get different straight lines.

Pay careful attention to my first sentence. This is what mathematics says, i.e., this is just good ol'-fashioned geometry of curved spaces. Relativity could be completely bunk (which it is not, by the way), and this would still be true.

Cheers,
TV's Frank

Seems to me that Relativity has rewritten the rules to suit it’s own purposes. Relativity makes the rules, makes predictions based on it’s own rules, then observers and analyses according to it’s own rules. Why am I not surprised that it’s conclusions confirm it’s own predictions? Very easy to be right when you’re your own judge and jury. Sorry to have to say this, but this seems very similar to what theists and general woo believers do.

As I’ve said earlier, just because mathematics says something is possible in abstract theory, it doesn’t mean it’s actually possible in reality. Guess I will never accept anything that is based predominately on mathematics, unless it is backed up by a healthy dose of common sense.

I used to regularly debate with theists, but for the most part have given it up as being a waste of time for both of us. Perhaps it is the same with Relativity. I would be a zillion times more likely to accept Relativity than a God, but unfortunately Relativity is founded on too many things that I cannot accept. It seems you have to accept these things before you can use them to confirm them. I guess I can keep my head in the sand, and you can keep yours in the clouds.

I might not agree with it but I find all this stuff fascinating and have followed this thread with interest. You may be able to criticize BeAChooser for his quality, but you can't fault his quantity.

Cheers and thanks

 

[Yllanes]

***********

http://www.bigbangneverhappened.org/p25.htm

"Dr. Wright is Wrong-- a reply to Ned Wright's "Errors in The Big Bang Never Happened"

I'll take a look at this later. Please quote only some passages and provide links for the rest. Nobody wants to read kilometric posts.

And what I said is that if you don't even know special relativity you can't possibly understand cosmology.

And, of course, what you didn't say but I'm sure you believe is if one understands relativity, one must automatically accept Big Bang?

I said that to reject standard cosmology you must first understand it. To do this you need to understand at least the basics of relativity, which you don't apparently. If we add that you don't know about plasmas, which we get from your latest posts, then you don't understand plasma cosmology either.

I hate to tell you this, but Einstein rejected the notion of the singularity.

So what? He was uncomfortable with singularities and he was uncomfortable with quantum mechanics.

He knew that his equations predicted a singularity at the instant of the Big Bang, but denied that a singularity actually occurred, claiming, "For large densities of field and of matter, the field equations and even the field variables which enter into them will have no real significance. One may not therefore assume the validity of the equations for very high density of field and of matter, and one may not conclude that the 'beginning of the expansion' [of the universe] must mean a singularity in the mathematical sense. All we have to realize is that the equations may not be continued over such regions.".

This agrees with what I said. Our equations fail at the singularity (this is why it's called a singularity), so maybe better equations would remove it. But this doesn't mean our equations are wrong outside.

The problem is one of keeping the plasma stable long enough for fusions to occur in sufficient numbers. In 50 years they've not been able to overcome this problem despite uncounted billions spent in research. Some plasma cosmologists and plasma physicists now say the problem is inherent to plasma and thus even the pressure and PRESUMED temperature of the core will not help. We have tried all manner of techniques to make the plasma's stable. Yet, we just ASSUME they are in the interior of the sun. Why?

Compare the size of the sun and the conditions inside with a tokamak or stellerator of 1 m radius. The confinement in the tokamak is magnetic, the confinement in the Sun is gravitational.

Meanwhile, we just disregard the fact that in order to even begin to see the solar phenomena that we can see, the standard model proponents have to invent new magnetic physics that have never been seen or reproduced on earth and that experts in plasmas and magnetic fields say are fantasy.

Again the same unsubstantiated claim. I'm getting tired of it.

 

[wollery]

Seems to me that Relativity has rewritten the rules to suit it’s own purposes. Relativity makes the rules, makes predictions based on it’s own rules, then observers and analyses according to it’s own rules. Why am I not surprised that it’s conclusions confirm it’s own predictions? Very easy to be right when you’re your own judge and jury. Sorry to have to say this, but this seems very similar to what theists and general woo believers do.

As I’ve said earlier, just because mathematics says something is possible in abstract theory, it doesn’t mean it’s actually possible in reality. Guess I will never accept anything that is based predominately on mathematics, unless it is backed up by a healthy dose of common sense.

How do you explain the expansion of the Universe, the bending of light by gravity, the slowing of clocks on orbital satellite and the orbit of Mercury with common sense?

More to the point, how do you explain the above with ordinary Newtonian mechanics?

 

[Taffer]

I'm not asking you to make a guess. I'm asking you to provide a peer reviewed paper challenging the data and conclusions set forth in a peer reviewed paper before simply dismissing what is concluded, as you have done.

I've done nothing of the sort. I've specifically stated you should not jump to conclusions, which is exactly what you have done, by claiming "the big bang theory is dead".

Personally, I will wait to see what others have to say about it.

 

[Taffer]

Whether they were developed independently of Big Bang or not and whether practically everyone accepts them or not has nothing to do with whether or not they are magical. You claim a wealth of evidence but it is ALL inferred from observations that plasma cosmologists say they can explain with ordinary physics. Most people believe in God. God has about the same degree of evidence as black holes.

What utter rubbish.

Yeah, you folks keep repeating that nonsense. How curious that Big Bang cosmology requires that just about every large object in space have a black hole in it to explain observations that plasma cosmologists say ordinary physics we can reproduce here on earth can explain.

Really? It can explain everything? If that were so, why can't you provide 4 simple numbers?

Oh that's right, it has nothing to do with Big Bang cosmology even though the whole universe must now be filled with it for Big Bang cosmology to explain the observations. That you don't even see my point says much about the sad state of cosmology and astrophysics today.

You are full of utter bollocks. Inferring things doesn't make it magical. As a geneticist, this is like saying that by inferring the function of a gene by looking at what happens when the gene doesn't function is akin to ascribing a magical explanation. Go get an education.

I asked you to define what it is. Can you?

Since I'm not an astrophysicist, I wouldn't even bother to try.

What? After nearly 30 years you don't know what it is yet? You just accept it. What *faith* you have.

Oh yes, I forgot that something has to be fully explained to be accurate! What law of gravity are we using, now? I must have missed where we explained what gravity was.

http://www.answers.com/topic/magic?cat=biz-fin "magic - The art that purports to control or forecast natural events, effects, or forces by invoking the supernatural." That seems to fit nicely.

Nice rhetoric. Luckily, it's a load of rubbish. Just because we cannot detect it does not make it magic. Stop the rhetoric bollocks, provide the 4 numbers asked of you, or go away.

A claim by string theorists that strings may be too small to ever be seen means the claim that strings exist can not be falsified. Is that science?

Since string theory is not the big bang theory, I fail to see what this has to do with anything.

I know, that's a problem. You don't think anything is related to the big bang. Not the singularity. Not the numerous gnomes that have been introduced to explain what has happened since the big bang. Nothing.

Nice rhetoric. Have any actual data? 4 simple numbers.

False. In this case, physicists (and I leave astrophysicists out of that group) do understand magnetic fields and plasmas. And what astrophysicists claim as magnetic phenomena to explain what they see are just fantasies. They have NEVER been observed or reproduced on earth in several hundred years of studying magnetic fields. Go ahead, show us ONE demonstration of reconnecting magnetic fields in a lab here on earth.

You need to brush up on your logic.

*I'm* making a huge leap of inference? ROTFLOL! Says the guy using inference to presume the existence of singularities, black holes, inflation, dark matter (in all it's flavors), dark energy and new magnetic field physics. Priceless!!!

Boy, you really enjoy proving my point (and using useless rhetoric). These things are inferred from observational data and current theories. If new theories arise which explain all the observational data (remember that stuff? Data? Like numbers?), it will replace the big bang theory. So far, none has, so the inferences stand.

By what basis do you presume that everything in the universe can be nicely detected by our current level of technology?

Not by introducing more magic when scientists haven't even resolved ANY of the mountain of magic they've already introduced to explain Big Bang.

Once again, being unable to detect it does not make it magic. How's that quest for an explanation of gravity going?

Do you?

Given that I "perform science" every day, and I am qualified to do so, I think it's pretty safe to say I do.

But I don't just assume it's correct. I can find numerous sources that validate what plasma cosmologist say about plasmas, electric currents and magnetic fields.

And yet you cannot provide 4 simple numbers?

That's a rather tired canard since plasma cosmology can already explain more than Big Bang does. And without invoking spirits and without having spent billions and billions of research dollars.

Oh really? Where are the peer reviewed articles which make predicitions which can be varified?

Oh, that's right, I forgot. It's all a big conspiricy to keep those papers out of journals.

You only INFER there is more matter based on observations of motions that plasma cosmologists can explain without introducing a zoo full of magic particles, forces, interactions and events.

Really? Present those predictions. The predictions which can be experimentally verified. An explanation is not enough, prediction is the key.

Go ahead, roll your eyes. That doesn't change the fact that they were peer reviewed in prestigious astronomical journals. They passed peer review.

I was rolling my eyes at your conspiricy theory ramblings, actually.

And you are sounding more and more like someone who has no rational response to the presented facts and logic. All you can do is dream up another magic particle or force to explain the next problem encountered in your theory and insist it's all true.

I did nothing of the sort. Not to mention that "you" are assuming these particles can't exist. Any luck finding those gravity explanations yet?

Well the Church in Galileo's time felt the same way ...

 

[Dabljuh]

Dark Matter doesn't exist. Its a bullpies theory designed to explain the 90-99% discrepancy between reality and prediction.

When the predictions don't match the measurements by a factor of 10-100, what is it you do?

[ ]You dismiss the theory
[X]You keep using the theory, but correct for the factor 10-100 discrepancy
[ ]You dismiss the measurements


I like plasma cosmology, btw.

 

[Taffer]

Dark Matter doesn't exist.

Because you say so?

Its a bullpies theory designed to explain the 90-99% discrepancy between reality and prediction.

When the predictions don't match the measurements by a factor of 10-100, what is it you do?

[ ]You dismiss the theory
[X]You keep using the theory, but correct for the factor 10-100 discrepancy
[ ]You dismiss the measurements


I like plasma cosmology, btw.

And it has been experimentally verified. Also, Dark Matter comes from very very robust theories.

 

[Dancing David]

Again, like in the other cases discussed, pi mesons were predicted based on the absence of something they could study here on earth. And again it took only about a decade to confirm their existence despite a World War on and a case of mistaken identity along the way.

http://www.ifi.unicamp.br/~ghtc/meson-e.htm "It was in 1947 that the existence of the pi meson was established. ... snip ... In 1935, the Japanese theoretical physicist Hideki Yukawa proposed an explanation of nuclear forces. He suggested the existence of a new particle, with a mass about 200 times larger than that of the electron. ... snip ... This particle received the name "meson" (from the Greek "mesos" = intermediate) because its mass was intermediate between those of the electron and of the proton. ... snip ... In 1937-38, Carl D. Anderson and Seth H. Neddermeyer found in the cosmic radiation, that continually reaches the ground, signs of something that looked like Yukawa's meson: it has the expected mass and disintegrated as Yukawa's particle was expected to disintegrate. For ten years, it seemed that everything fit in the scheme, and that there was a nice theory on the constitution of matter. In 1947, however, this peace was shaken. It became clear that the meson of Anderson and Neddermeyer did not behave as predicted by Yukawa's theory. ... snip ... That is where Lattes' group comes in. In 1946, a research group in Bristol, England, ... snip ... analyzed some emulsions of a new kind ... snip ... after a few days of detailed study, they found two special tracks of mesons that gradually reduced their speed in the emulsion, and finally stopped. At the end of those tracks, they observed that a new meson appeared. ... snip ... One of the mesons was about 30% or 40% heavier than the other one. The heavier meson was able to disintegrate and to produce the lighter meson. The second particle was the one that was already known from the studies of Anderson and Neddermeyer. To distinguish it from the other one, it was called "mu meson" (nowadays, it is called "muon"). The primary meson, on the other side, was something new, unknown. It was called "pi meson", and its identification was announced in October 1947. Later tests showed that it strongly interacted with nuclei and that its characteristic properties were those required by Yukawa's theory. The particles that hold the nucleus together had been found."

Well, I shall have to dig out Helge Kragh's book and read the stuff again. You are quoting a post facto sources. According to Kragh, there was not a consensus about the missing energy and many in the community considered Yukawa's math to be just plain wrong.

many authors like the 'march of science' perspective and forget the fact that it was very contentitious at the time.

Perhaps, but they sure use the Big Bang to justify the Big Toys.

So what?

Supersymetry was not developed to support the BBE theory despite your consipracy theory claims.

I think it's fear of the weapons developed with those big toys that lead to big defense budgets.

No , that is foolish. lets us see, halliburton makes billions and billions of dollars by doing things that used to be done by soldiers. That is not fear of the big weapons.

The Manhattan projecy ate up appoxiamately 5% of the whole spending of WWII. And was seperate from the developement of 'cloud chambers' and colliders.

A lot of the US miltary spending is consumed in profits for the manufacturers. But please ignore the truth and facts.

Most cosmologists haven't got a research budget. So you are really appearing quite histrionic at times, not your intent, I am sure.

 

[Dancing David]

No, I'm drawing this conclusion based on data and logic.

And your assertions that it is the truth makes you appear to be a faith based believer rather than a sceptic. You hold your ideas to a seprate standard of evidence and proof.

Good, I'm glad we agree on that. Do you think Arp and Plasma Cosmologists will be invited to the round table? If so, maybe this will be the crack in the door they need. If not, that will say something too.

You are so silly, you think they don't know who Arp is? You think they don't sit with him at the conferences, you really think they don't read his papers?

What a goof!

And simply rejected by the Big Bang community with handwaving and excuses. Now they will have no excuses. It will be interesting to see what happens.

that is where you are just spinning your fable of the Oppressed Scientist and the Voice in the Wilderness. taken in by a fable.

Oh boy. The Big Bang community gets to adjust their interpretation of the data and model AGAIN. Any bets on how old the new universe will be, how old the new oldest stars will be, how much the quantities of Dark Matter and Dark Energy will be adjusted, and how many new magic particles, forces, interactions will be needed?

That is the way of science you sill man, you should really read more on the history of the way science actualy develops. It is not the march of progress, it is the brownian motion and a constrained system of evidence.

Your theory is rather quaint and monotheistic.

That is the way science is, even Feynman was questioned and doubted in his time.

 

[Dancing David]

First, they don't mention plasma ... seems everything is neutral "gas" to these folks.

Second, they say "Enhanced stretches of the HST image show a debatable 'luminous bridge' between NGC 4319 and Mrk205"

I'll certainly agree it's debatable but perhaps it would help if they processed the image in a different way. Here's what others were able to get out of the Hubble images with better processing:

http://www.astr.ua.edu/keel/galaxies/hhn4319a.jpg

http://www.haltonarp.com/articles/rebuttals/illustrations/mk205a-neg.jpg

http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/controversies/Arp_controversy.htm (see the CCD image by David Strange)

So they are discussing it and investigating it, which was my point. Your arm waving about the lack of attention your beloved object of affection recieves is refuted.

Some of those shows a more defined bridge. And make me doubt the claim of the author that there are similar "gas" features around the galaxy and quasar. But it is debatable.

Your doubt is not proof, you have demonstrated a very strong and persistent bias toward a lack of critical thought towards your own beliefs.

Third, there seems to be some confusion in that source. First it states that "In time, many quasars were found to lie in galaxies with exactly the same redshift, providing powerful evidence that quasars are an event that occurs in the nucleus of galaxies." Then it states "Today the redshift controversy has almost faded from view. Only a few astronomers still think there is reasonable evidence for noncosmological redshifts". Those seem to be contradictory statements.

Ah, that is the sign you don't understand science and are seraching for what looks like a more faith based approach. Did you know that Bohr and others, including Gell-Mann ( a true meglomaniac) often held that a thing might or might not be true?

Do you really know what science is about?

Yes, that's an interesting case. That's why I mentioned it earlier.



I'm not saying it's been totally squelched, just that there's a certain ... shall we say ... .disinterest on the part of the mainstream astronomical community. For one thing, they choose to treat each case as individual rather than look at the likelihood that all are just optical illusions.

Again, that is not what even a cursory look will show, it is an area of interest and it is being studied, even by people whose web sites you don't read.

And what does it say? That "A few hundred million years ago the galaxy NGC 7320C (just outside the left-hand edge of the Hubble image) passed through the group from behind (as seen from Earth). It collided with the galaxies in the group, ripping out gas and stars to form a long tidal tail as it flew by. ... snip ... Their observations revealed that all but one of the galaxies are receding from Earth at about the same velocity (~6000 km/s). The discordant galaxy (NGC 7320 seen in the bottom of the Hubble image) is receding much less rapidly (~800 km/s). Some astronomers saw this as evidence that redshift is unrelated to distance, opposing the idea that the Universe is expanding. However, today there is general agreement that NGC 7320 is merely a foreground galaxy, 35 million light years away, projected onto the more distant (270 million light years) compact group by chance. ... A few hundred million years ago the galaxy NGC 7320C (just outside the left-hand edge of the Hubble image) passed through the group from behind (as seen from Earth). It collided with the galaxies in the group, ripping out gas and stars to form a long tidal tail as it flew by."

Now let's see, what did they leave out of the above description? That there is ALSO a tail coming out of NGC 7320 (the one that's supposedly 8 times closer than the others)

And you OBVIOUSLY didn't read why the author chose to make that choice.

More clinging to what looks like a faith based appraoch and fanaticism on your part.

that sweeps around in an arc directly towards NGC 7320C. The one out of NGC 7319 is only in the general direction of NGC 7320. You can see an image of this here: http://www.electric-cosmos.org/arp.htm . If an encounter with NGC 7320C is what caused the tail of NGC 7319 to point in its general direction, what caused the tail that's clearly coming off NGC 7320 which is supposedly many times closer? They and other sources dismiss this as a chance alignment (and maybe it is) ... but it must be a *really* chance alignment since now we have NGC 7320 sitting exactly on a tail that sweeps directly into NGC 7320C. But like always, they threat the alignment in isolation from all the other "chance alignments" Arp noted. Looked at probabilistically, that's not a reasonable thing to do. Sure, some of them may be chance alignments. But all of them?

You are starting to get fanatic again, even a cursory search of 'seyfert quasar' will show that there is lot of discussion going on, even in the mundane spotlight of APOD.

wave those arms faster, it is supposed to be hot here again.

And again we have an article that talks about "gas" and never mentions plasma.

Fanatic.

You might find this source of interest (another chance alignment?):

http://www.aanda.org/index.php?option=article&access=doi&doi=10.1051/0004-6361:20034260
"The field surrounding NGC*7603: Cosmological or non-cosmological redshifts? ... snip ... Abstract
We present new observations of the field surrounding the Seyfert galaxy NGC*7603, where four galaxies with different redshifts*-*NGC*7603 ( z=0.029), NGC*7603B ( z=0.057) and two fainter emission line galaxies ( z=0.245 and z=0.394)*-*are apparently connected by a narrow filament, leading to a possible case of anomalous redshift. The observations comprise broad and narrow band imaging and intermediate resolution spectroscopy of some of the objects in the field. The new data confirm the redshift of the two emission-line objects found within the filament connecting NGC*7603 and NGC*7603B, and settles their type with better accuracy. Although both objects are point-like in ground based images, using HST archive images we show that the objects have structure with a FWHM = 0.3-0.4*arcsec. The photometry in the R-band obtained during three different campaigns spread over two years does not show any signs of variability in these objects above 0.3-0.4*mag. All the above information and the relative strength and width of the main spectral lines allow us to classify these as*HII galaxies with very vigorous star formation, while the rest of the filament and NGC*7603B lack star formation. We delineate the halo of NGC*7603 out to 26.2*mag/arcsec 2 in the Sloan r*band filter and find evidence for strong internal distortions. New narrow emission line galaxies at z=0.246, 0.117 and*0.401 are also found at respectively*0.8, 1.5 and 1.7*arcmin to the West of the filament within the fainter contour of this halo. We have studied the spatial distribution of objects in the field within*1.5*arcmin of NGC*7603. We conclude that the density of*QSOs is roughly within the expected value of the limiting magnitude of our observations. However, the configuration of the four galaxies apparently connected by the filament appears highly unusual. The probability of three background galaxies of any type with apparent B-magnitudes up to*16.6, 21.1 and*22.1 (the observed magnitudes, extinction correction included) being randomly projected on the filament of the fourth galaxy (NGC*7603) is . Furthermore, the possible detection of very vigorous star formation observed in the HII*galaxies of the filament would have a low probability if they were background normal-giant galaxies; instead, the intensity of the lines is typical of dwarf HII*galaxies. Hence, a set of coincidences with a very low probability would be necessary to explain this as a fortuitous projection of background sources. Several explanations in terms of cosmological or non-cosmological redshifts are discussed."

Looks a lot like the article I linked to earlier.

Your meglomania and lack of interrest in any debate is rather dull.

Doubt is the basis of scepticism, doubt yourself first.

 

[Dancing David]

There you go folks. This is the response that plasma cosmologists have gotten for nearly 30 years from the Big Bang community.



I've provided plenty of evidence. You just don't want to discuss it, so you ignore it. Because you know where discussing it would lead.

Warning the following is meant as humor solely. If you do not have a sense of humor than please do not attempt this at home.

There you go folks. This is the response that scientific creationists have gotten for nearly 30 years from the Darwinist community.



I've provided plenty of evidence. You just don't want to discuss it, so you ignore it. Because you know where discussing it would lead.

I knew i had seen this before.

 

[SirPhilip]

Warning the following is meant as humor solely. If you do not have a sense of humor than please do not attempt this at home.

So now you write jest in Big Bang threads, and initiating yourself into my Zen philosophical school without bowing. I see how it is.