Another Problem With Big Bang?

[BeAChooser]

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
Plasma cosmologists have an explanation that doesn't involve this mysterious dark matter, that involves physics that we have immense experience with over the last hundred years, that involves physics we can (and have) demonstrated in the lab as producing such a rotation curve.

Does it involve any actual math?

Yes. Which they've built into complex particle in cell computer codes that model the effects of gravity, electric and magnetic effects on matter with great precision. And then they've run those codes on very big computers and proven that the electro-magnetic effects dominate and produce observed rotation curves without introducing vast additional amounts of undetectable, untestable, bizarrely propertied dark matter. You might want to look up Dr Anthony Peratt at LANL.

 

[BeAChooser]

Scientists invoke invisible particles, forces, and events frequently.

Really?

Please name a discipline besides cosmology and astrophysics where they do that?

And where the claimed particles, forces, and events are falsifiable.

 

[BeAChooser]

Intergalactic fields, as I said, are not strong enough or at a large enough scale.

Well apparently the folks who may really understand electrical currents and magnetic fields don't agree with you. Perhaps that is why they've started by-passing the we-insist-it's-only-gravity astronomy crowd (who won't publish their papers or listen to what they have to say) and are now holding their own conferences and publishing their paper in respected journals IN THEIR OWN FIELD. Like I said, there's a war of ideas going on and we'll just have to see who turns out right in the end.

I asked you before if you knew what the Debye length was. Part of the definition of a plasma is that it be a quasineutral system, i.e., that the electric charge be shielded at distance of a scale (the Debye length) much smaller than the system. So electromagnetic fields control the dynamics of a plasma but seen from outside the system is neutral. Which means that even if the interstellar medium is a plasma (which of course it is), two galaxies won't attract each other because of their electrical charge.

***********

http://www.plasma-universe.com/index.php/Quasineutrality

... snip ...

The distance over which quasi-neutrality becomes apparent depends on factors such as the density and temperature of a plasma. For example, the higher the density of a plasma, the smaller the region of quasi-neutrality because it will contain nearly equal numbers of negative and positively charged particle.

This distance over which quasi-neutrality may break down, is often described by the Debye length (or Debye sphere), and varies according to the physical characteristics of the plasma. The Debye length is typically less than a millimetre (ie. charged regions will not exceed a millimetre), in plasmas found in fluorescent light tubes, tokamaks (used in fusion research), and the ionosphere. However, the Debye length may reach about 10m in the interplanetary medium (solar wind) and interstellar medium (between the star), and up to 10,000m (10km) in intergalactic space.

... snip ...

Quasi-neutrality is violated by, for example, charged particle beams (jets) and double layers, though the containing plasma as a whole will still maintain charge neutrality, but local regions may not.

The magnitude of the size of the violation of quasi-neutrality is typically a few 10s times the Debye length. In other words, if the Debye length for a particular plasma is about 1cm, then charge separation regions around 10 - 20 cm may occur.

But note that while the distance between two charge separation regions may be quite small, the overall size of each each region may be enormous. For example, the jet emerging from the galaxy M87, has been estimated to be 5400 light-years long.

**********

Note that Debye sphere's can overlap and adjacent regions interact. All the plasmas we see in our solar system, behave collectively at sizes much greater than their Debye length.

And Hannes Alfven said "In a low density plasma, localized space charge regions may build up large potential drops over distances of the order of some tens of the Debye lengths. Such regions have been called electric double layers. An electric double layer is the simplest space charge distribution that gives a potential drop in the layer and a vanishing electric field on each side of the layer. In the laboratory, double layers have been studied for half a century, but their importance in cosmic plasmas has not been generally recognized."

The Debye Length in an aurora is a few tens of centimeters, but there may be many double layers, and the extent of the aurora can be many thousands of miles long. Solar Wind has a Debye length of about 10m, yet produces the Heliospheric Current Sheet which extends out beyond the orbit of Pluto.

Frankly, I don't think you can make the blanket statement you did, given the above realities and the fact that the folks who understand plasma's the best don't agree with you. It IS more complex then just looking at the Debye length.

The reality is that filamentation, jets, x-rays, gamma rays, synchrotron radiation are all characteristics of plasmas, and are all seen occurring over vast distances in intragalactic space, which we know is filled with plasma. We also have good reasons to believe intergalactic space is filled with plasmas, electric charges, currents and magnetic fields. Over long periods of time those things will create very large structures. The reality is that the Big Bang community is now facing difficulty explaining how observed huge structures at great distances have formed in the time the Big Bang community claims the universe has existed.

For example, they are finding strings of galaxies near the edge of the observable universe (if you believe the red shift data is correct in giving distance) that Dr Paul Francis, who headed the team, has been unable to reproduce using existing simulation models. In his own words, "We are looking back four-fifths of the way to the beginning of the universe and the existence of this galaxy string will send astrophysicists around the world back to the drawing board to reexamine the theories of the formation of the universe. The simulations tell us that you cannot take the matter in the early universe and line it up in strings this large. There simply hasn't been enough time since the Big Bang for it to form stuctures this colossal." And he's a Big Bang proponent!

The reality is also that the big bang community cannot even begin to explain many phenomena that plasma cosmologists have no trouble explaining and model on their computers using known and validated physics without invoking unseen, untestable, magic particles and forces. So who is more seriously violating reality here?

Oh and by the way, no one on the plasma cosmology side is claiming that gravity doesn't have significant effects. Just that plasma and electromagnetic forces are also significant to an understanding of the universe and that if they are included, they make the need for much (if not all) of the "missing mass" and other esoteric ghosts of the Big Bang theory unnecessary. And they may make the big bang itself unnecessary.

you need something much better than an observation like 'there is a lot of plasma' to challenge a theory as well established as Big Bang cosmology.

My suggestion is you read Donald Scott's book, "The Electric Sky" and visit Anthony Peratt's website. You might be shocked at what you find and learn.

Consider this argument from Scott's book:

"A plasma universe and a gravitational universe have gross observational differences. A plasma universe should be filamentary - stringy - at all size scales (in the atmospheres of planets, in the Sun's corona, in groups of stars, in galaxies and in strings of galaxy clusters). It should be energetic, a source of electromagnetic radiation over the entire electromagnetic spectrum, and it should be endless in space. The gravitational universe - the "big bang" universe - is supposed to have produced all the elements originally, should now be quiescent in the absence of mass collisions, and should be increasingly smooth on the large scale. The filamentation, chaos, and radio-frequency radiation that we now observe were not expected in the original big bang model."

And to explain those things, Big Bang has had to introduce a score of undetectable, untestable, bizarre particles, energies, forces and events.

On the other hand (again from the above source), "filamentation, chaos, electric and magnetic fields, intense charged particle beams, broadband radiation from extremely low frequencies to gamma-rays, and an overall cellular structure were the predictions of a plasma universe, as developed at the end of the Nineteenth Century."

Now aren't you at all interested?

 

[BeAChooser]

Listen, I don't claim plasma cosmology is a completely stupid concept. Serious scientists have studied it. I'm just saying that nowadays the level of observational support and theoretical development it has is nowhere near that of Big Bang cosmology.

And I think you are wrong and will find out you are wrong if you read Scott's book and do a little more investigation of the current situation.

You also talk about "observational support" but you have it backwards.

In instance after instance, the Big Bang theory has had to be revised inorder to explain observations. It predicted very little of what is actually seen out there. And the revisions to Big Bang have hinges entirely on the BELIEF in invisible, untestable particles, forces, energies and events. That's not the way science is supposed to work.

In constrast to Big Bang, plasma cosmologists made predictions long ago about what would eventually be seen out there and in almost all cases they've been proven right. The fundamental physics underlying plasma cosmology has required no major revisions or the introduction of invisible, untestable particles, forces, energies and events.

Read Scott's book and you'll see that I'm right.

 

[Yllanes]

The magnitude of the size of the violation of quasi-neutrality is typically a few 10s times the Debye length. In other words, if the Debye length for a particular plasma is about 1cm, then charge separation regions around 10 - 20 cm may occur.

So, by your own data, intergalactic space is neutral at scales bigger than 100 000 km.

But note that while the distance between two charge separation regions may be quite small, the overall size of each each region may be enormous. For example, the jet emerging from the galaxy M87, has been estimated to be 5400 light-years long.

This is nothing in cosmological scales. Cosmology deals with 10⁷ light years at least (this is the scale at which the universe can be considered homogeneous).

[snip stuff about collective effects]

Frankly, I don't think you can make the blanket statement you did, given the above realities and the fact that the folks who understand plasma's the best don't agree with you. It IS more complex then just looking at the Debye length.

I agree, there can obviously be effects much bigger than the Debye length. But I was replying to your initial blanket statement. You said that 99% of the visible matter was plasmas and that plasmas are ionised and so susceptible to EM forces. I said that it isn't so simple, because plasmas are still neutral at large enough scales, so the fact that there is a lot of plasma is not enough to justify a cosmological effect. If there is one, you need better and subtler arguments than its abundance. And I know a bit about plasmas, I have in fact done some research work in plasma turbulence in fusion reactors.

My suggestion is you read Donald Scott's book, "The Electric Sky" and visit Anthony Peratt's website. You might be shocked at what you find and learn.

Before reading any website, I need you to comment on my post 51, where I point out some incredibly crackpottish claims in one of your sources. I understand you haven't had time yet to get there, but answer when you do. Do you think, given the few excerpts I quoted, that that webpage makes any kind of sense? Plasma cosmology is one thing, but that page even claims special relativity is wrong (among many other things).

On the other hand (again from the above source), "filamentation, chaos, electric and magnetic fields, intense charged particle beams, broadband radiation from extremely low frequencies to gamma-rays, and an overall cellular structure were the predictions of a plasma universe, as developed at the end of the Nineteenth Century."

I find this claim strange, because it was ot until 1923 that plasmas began to be studied seriously by Langmuir and Tonks. And I thought plasma cosmology started in the 1960s.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Yes. Which they've built into complex particle in cell computer codes that model the effects of gravity, electric and magnetic effects on matter with great precision. And then they've run those codes on very big computers and proven that the electro-magnetic effects dominate and produce observed rotation curves without introducing vast additional amounts of undetectable, untestable, bizarrely propertied dark matter. You might want to look up Dr Anthony Peratt at LANL.

So, you have no actual math.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Really?

Please name a discipline besides cosmology and astrophysics where they do that?

And where the claimed particles, forces, and events are falsifiable.

I was thinking of this little thing called "gravity".

 

[Dr Adequate]

In constrast to Big Bang, plasma cosmologists made predictions long ago about what would eventually be seen out there and in almost all cases they've been proven right.

So you can quote their "predictions", yes?

This happened "long ago", and it did happen, right? --- 'cos you've just told us this as a fact.

So perhaps you could list the "proven" predictions of "plasma cosmologists" which they made "long ago" in the same post that you show me their math?

Thank you.

 

[Dancing David]

Well apparently it does for everything they've looked at so far. You are certainly welcome to present an instance where it fails. The nice thing about plasma cosmology is that it is falsifiable. The big bang explanation is not. Think about that.

Could you show us where this is demonstrated, so far you say it has been, and I believe you. Would you post a link?

 

[BeAChooser]

I will throw a tiny bone to BeAChooser: we have not detected dark matter particles. We have inferred their presence from gravitational effects.

Nor have you detected dark energy. I'm not chewing on the bone.

I'm chewing on what appears to be the dead carcass of Big Bang.

And I'm not alone: http://www.cosmologystatement.org/.

Just so readers understand how problematic things are for big bang proponents, they should understand that there isn't just one kind of dark matter. To explain various aspects of the observations and as an indication of their desperation to find *something*, they've had to invent all sorts of dark matter. MACHO's, WIMPs, hot dark matter and cold dark matter. There are even other subclassifications: cold collisionless dark matter, strongly self-interacting dark matter, warm dark matter, repulsive dark matter, self annihilating dark matter, fuzzy dark matter.

And in 30 expensive years of looking for any proof of any one of those, they've found nothing. All this ... because they wanted to explain some motions using gravity that plasma cosmologists have been telling them they can explain with physics found right here on earth for 30 years. But they simply refused to listen.

If we don't find these particles in, say, 10 years or so, then we will have some challenging questions to face.

You have them right now and you are ignoring them. Perhaps because there is too much money and too many careers at stake to just admit you were wrong. And also because *scientists* using the deductive method are now in control of the peer review process and corrupting it. So my prediction is that the number of flavors of undetected dark matter and dark energy, and new *inferred* interactions and physics, will continue to grow as Big Bang proponents try desperately to prop up a tilting structure.

And in the meantime other cracks in the edifice will grow.

The standard model of stars is already under attack by the plasma cosmologists. Astrophysicists can't explain the distribution of angular momentum in the solar system without invoking the explanation that plasma cosmologists have given them. Plasma cosmologists can easily explain what is observed to be occurring on the surface of and around the sun. Those who support the nuclear energy based standard model cannot. To cite just one example, they can't explain why temperatures suddenly zoom to millions of degrees away from the surface without dreaming up properties for magnetic fields that those who are most familiar such physics say do not and cannot exist. Nor can they explain the long tubes of current carrying plasma that were recently discovered emanating from or going into the poles of the sun. And all the while, particles that their nuclear equations insist should be found coming from the sun remain missing.

Big Bang priests claim that stars evolve over billion of years based on nuclear models of what they ASSUME is going on inside stars, yet examples are turning up of stars that have moved from one side of the Herstzsprung-Russell diagram to the other in a human lifetime. Plasma cosmologists seem able to explain this, quite convincingly (see Scott's book). I doubt you can, Frank.

Big bang cosmologists can't explain gamma ray bursters. They are mysterious. But plasma cosmologists seem to have a quite reasonable explanation for them that fits within their current model of what stars are and how they work. The neutronium in neutron stars is a figment of the standard model's imagination. Finally realizing that neutrons don't behave the way they imagined, big bang proponents created yet another mysterious and untestable entity, "strange matter" to take their place.

Big Bang proponents hypothesize (actually claim as fact) the existence of black holes in nearly every structure we can see out there in space. They need them to explain what we see. For example, the jets we see coming from stars and galaxies require this explanation. Yet the originator of the black hole concept, Dr John Wheeler, once said that "To me, the formation of a naked singularity is equivalent to jumping across the Gulf of Mexico. I would be willing to bet a million dollars that it can't be done. But I can't prove that it can't be done." And all the while, plasma cosmologists have been able to demonstrate in the lab and with computer models the formation of jets just like those observed using nothing more than physics we find here on earth. The same is true of quasars. Plasma cosmologists can explain their characteristics, big bang cosmologists can not ... not without invoking more black holes and bizarre and untested new physics.

Unlike Big Bang, plasma cosmologists predicted the filamentary nature of the universe. Hannes Alfven, from studies of synchrotron radiation in the 1950's, proposed that sheets of electric current would crisscross the cosmos and the interaction with the electromagnetic fields produced by these currents would create complex, cellular and filamentary structure ... just as our telescopes revealed to be the case in the 1980s. In contrast, Big Bang cosmologists had modify their model yet again ... claiming the existance of even more invisible/non-falsifiable dark matter and dark energy to explain the filaments.

Observation after observation coming from the big telescopes of stars and galaxies and what's in between them are forcing Big Bang modelers to invoke increasingly bizarre, untestable, and unscientific explanations to keep the edifice standing. But not the plasma cosmologists. Each new observation only bolsters their case as they show they can explain it with the physics they already know. And that's why I can hear the bell tolling.

That and the fact that all the while, the Big Bang community tries to ignore plasma cosmologists rather than learn from them. An example of this is pointed out in Scott's book. "A search of the Astronomy Picture of the Day (APOD) web site archive shows that the astronomers who write the official explanations of those images invoked the presence of black holes 117 times from October 1995 through December 2002. Over the same period, neutron stars were presented 64 times. The electrodynamic behavior of the plasma that makes up 99% of our universe was not mentioned. Not once."

The Big Bang's assertions about redshift are under increasing attack as well. Dr Halton Arp, who was Edwin Hubble's assistant (you know, the guy who first proposed a link between redshift and distance), and a growing number of other researchers, are demonstrating quite conclusively that the relationship that astronomers use between redshift and distance isn't foolproof. He's shown case after case of plasma trails linking high redshift objects and low redshift objects. Examples like this:

where there are 3 high redshift objects in the plasma that's clearly coming from a low redshift galaxy. The plasma cosmologists can explain what is seen. The big bang community can not. It can only pretend that all those cases are optical illusions when statistically that's not even remotely viable.

And now there is a growing list of high redshift objects being found in front of low redshift objects. This is something that the Big Bang community is really struggling to explain. Like NGC 7319. Like these ... http://www.quasars.org/qso-gals/default.htm

Now we know that 99% of the matter we see is plasma which is strongly affected by electromagnetic fields (by a factor of 10^^39 over gravity). A characteristic of current-conducting plasma is that it pinches along the flow because of the inward pressure of its self magnetic field. It is at the pinch points where plasma cosmologists say bodies of gravitationally significant mass, galaxies consisting of 10^^9- 10^^10 stars, coalesce. Now Anthony Peratt thinks that quasars are "pinches" in the intense Birkeland currents streaming from galaxies. Or in other cases, the "pinch" at the center of galaxies that are still forming (i.e., part of Alfven's electric model for galaxies).

even if the standard cosmological model is demonstrated to be completely, totally, unconditionally wrong, then that does NOT make plasma cosmology automatically correct. Even if we never find a dark matter particle, it does NOT mean plasma cosmology is the answer.

But at least plasma cosmology is falsifiable.

But we do not need to defend standard cosmology, since it has already passed strict observational tests.

False. Big bang cosmology has repeatedly been modified to explain observations because the then current model didn't explain them. That's the real history. And to explain those observations, Big Bang cosmologists have had to hypothesize a whole zoo of invisible objects, bizarre forces and matter, strange physics and purely mathematical events. That's not passing ANY test. And as I pointed out above, their problems are only growing worse by the day.

So, BeAChooser, please use plasma cosmology to explain the following observations. Note: we are doing physics, so you MUST use mathematics.

I guess you don't realize how utterly funny that comment is coming from someone who believes in a zoo of purely mathematical objects, forces, interactions and events.

You MUST compare directly to observations.

Sure. Let's do that. But let's do it with what Big Bang claims.

the age of the universe

Plasma cosmologists don't make a claim as to the age of the universe other than that its old, at least old enough to have formed the very large structures (like strings of galaxies) that are observed at the very limits of the observable universe. The problem those observations cause for Big Bang, I pointed out in an earlier post using a remark made by a Big Bang astronomer. Also note folks, that one reason Big Bang cosmology invented this still very mysterious *dark energy* is that without it, the age of the Big Bang universe would appear to be less than some stars appear to be (if you believe the standard nuclear model for the ages of those stars).

-the abundance of light elements (e.g., hydrogen, helium, and lithium)

Let's look more closely at the elemental composition of stars and galaxies in general. The 2004 American Astronomical Society meeting found that the universe looks very similar at high redshifts to its appearance today. Galaxies from 10 billion years ago appear to have a similar distribution of stellar ages and a similar spectrum of chemical elements produced by stars to that of our present-day galaxy. If the Big Bang really happened, these galaxies should appear much younger, with fewer heavy metals and mostly young stars. How do you explain this? Plasma cosmology can. So perhaps you don't really understand the function of stars or the age of the universe. In which case, maybe there's another explanation for the abundance of light elements. Eric Lerner and Anthony Peratt have proposed one the explains not only the abundance of light elements but the abundance of heavy ones too. And new electrodynamic models of the sun may clarify that even further as time goes by since those models are changing the way plasma cosmologists look at the production of elements in stars in the first place.

-the existence of the CMB (e.g., temperature)
-the power spectrum of the CMB (e.g., the l=200 peak, isotropy)
-the spectral index of CMB fluctuations

Speaking of CMB ...

http://www.physorg.com/news76314500.html "September 01, 2006, ... snip ... In a finding sure to cause controversy, scientists at The University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH) found a lack of evidence of shadows from "nearby" clusters of galaxies using new, highly accurate measurements of the cosmic microwave background. A team of UAH scientists led by Dr. Richard Lieu, a professor of physics, used data from NASA's Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) to scan the cosmic microwave background for shadows caused by 31 clusters of galaxies. "These shadows are a well-known thing that has been predicted for years," said Lieu. "This is the only direct method of determining the distance to the origin of the cosmic microwave background. Up to now, all the evidence that it originated from as far back in time as the Big Bang fireball has been circumstantial. ... snip ... If the standard Big Bang theory of the universe is accurate and the background microwave radiation came to Earth from the furthest edges of the universe, then massive X-ray emitting clusters of galaxies nearest our own Milky Way galaxy should all cast shadows on the microwave background. These findings are scheduled to be published in the Sept. 1, 2006, edition of the Astrophysical Journal. Taken together, the data shows a shadow effect about one-fourth of what was predicted - an amount roughly equal in strength to natural variations previously seen in the microwave background across the entire sky. Either it (the microwave background) isn't coming from behind the clusters, which means the Big Bang is blown away, or ... there is something else going on," said Lieu. "One possibility is to say the clusters themselves are microwave emitting sources, either from an embedded point source or from a halo of microwave-emitting material that is part of the cluster environment." "Based on all that we know about radiation sources and halos around clusters, however, you wouldn't expect to see this kind of emission. And it would be implausible to suggest that several clusters could all emit microwaves at just the right frequency and intensity to match the cosmic background radiation."

Oh oh.

Oh ... I almost missed this little tidbit at the end of that article: "Just over a year ago Lieu and Dr. Jonathan Mittaz, a UAH research associate, published results of a study using WMAP data to look for evidence of "lensing" effects which should have been seen (but weren't) if the microwave background was a Big Bang remnant."

Oh oh squared.

Maybe the cosmic background radiation isn't coming from where you think? And that's what plasma cosmologists have been saying. They propose that the CMB results from local fields and currents that scatter microwave radiation from the pervasive plasma source. Lerner has shown that plasma cosmology can generate a microwave background by synchrotron radiation which permeates the universe thanks to electrodynamic effects. Come to think of it, do big bang proponents even have an explanation for all the synchrotron radiation seen coming from objects everywhere we look?

-the flatness of spatial curvature

Plasma cosmology doesn't have a problem with the flatness of spatial curvature. Never did.

Big bang proponents only get there by inventing a very special and unique event, inflation (or should I say new inflation, chaotic inflation, eternal inflation, stochastic inflation, modified gravity or one of their sub-variants?), that is nothing more than a mathematical construct. And now the Big Bang community is trying to use string theory, another mathematical construct involving invisible/untestable entities, to make sense of inflation. It doesn't get any more ridiculous.

-the matter power spectrum (e.g., scale of non-linear growth, presence of BAO peak)

-the lyman-alpha forest

I think you big bang proponents will eventually have to learn to speak english ... because this type of argument isn't going to convince anyone that you are right much longer. It can't hide the problems with the basic assumptions on which calculation of such things are based. The priesthood will soon no longer be in control of what we read and believe, Frank.

If folks really want to know how ridiculous the Big Bang theories are getting, they need look no farther than Big Bang articles like this, where terms like matter power spectrum and lyman-alpha forest are found:

http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1468-4004.2005.46526.x "Sounding the dark cosmos ... snip ... Sound waves travelling through the relativistic plasma during the first million years of the universe imprinted a preferred scale in the density of matter. We now have the ability to detect this characteristic fingerprint in the clustering of galaxies at various redshifts and use it to measure the acceleration of the expansion of the universe. A proposed new instrument, the Wide-Field Multi-Object Spectrograph (WFMOS), would use this test to shed significant light on the true nature of dark energy, the mysterious source of this cosmic acceleration."

I predict that if we, the people, fund projects like this, we may just be throwing more money down a *black hole*. ROTFLOL! And what if you are wrong about what quasars are and how far away they are? Why then Lyman-Forest data might be another dead end.

-the luminosity-distance relations of type 1a supernova

Basically quoting Gary K at http://woodside.blogs.com/cosmologycuriosity/2007/03/the_universes_d.html, Type 1a supernovae SEEM to be more distant, by luminosity measurements, than they SEEM to be by redshift measurements. So, the universe should be older by luminosity than it is by redshift. If one extrapolates redshift versus distance or time*back toward zero, one obtains an intersection with the ordinate axis that is short of the origin (as determined by luminosity). The only way that this could occur is if the radial velocity of expansion line is curved upward. This is the same as saying the universe expansion rate is accelerating. But, then it is not closed or poised on the borderline. If it is poised, it would show a leveling off, an asymptotic approach to a plateau. So CMB data shows a picture that is at odds with the supernova data.*It is not all consistent. Alan Guth's inflation says that the universe should have a flat curvature to within an exceedingly small percentage. But, an accelerating universe is not flat. Big Bang cosmologists seem to want to have it both ways and the alternatives are mutually contradictory. So they invent that mysterious dark energy.

From the "The First Crisis in Cosmology Conference, June 23–25 2005 ... Retired electrical engineer Tom Andrews presented a novel approach to the validation (or rather, invalidation) of the expanding Universe model. It is well known that type 1A supernovae (SNe) show measurable anomalous dimming (with distance or remoteness in time) in a flat expanding Universe model. Andrews used observational data from two independent sets of measurements of brightest cluster galaxies (defined as the brightest galaxy in a cluster). It was expected, since the light from the SNe and the bright galaxies traverses the same space to get to us, that the latter should also be anomalously dimmed. They clearly are not. The orthodox explanation for SNe dimming — that it is the result of the progressive expansion of space — is thereby refuted. He puts a further nail in the coffin by citing Goldhaber’s study of SNe light curves, which did not reveal the second predicted light-broadening effect due to time dilation. Says Andrews: “The Hubble redshift of Fourier harmonic frequencies [for SNe] is shown to broaden the light curve at the observer by (1 + z). Since this broadening spreads the total luminosity over a longer time period, the apparent luminosity at the observer is decreased by the same factor. This accounts quantitatively for the dimming of SNe. On the other hand, no anomalous dimming occurs for galaxies since the luminosity remains constant over time periods much longer than the light travel time to the observer. This effect is consistent with the non-expanding Universe model. The expanding model is logically falsified”.

Next?

 

[BeAChooser]

The amount of matter in the Universe just predicts whether or not the Universe will go on expanding forever or contract back in on itself. We can run the BB model back to the first fraction of a second, dark matter understood or not.

That's about as logical and fact filled as your posts defending the Clinton administration of any and all crimes.

Wait! Those post of yours were sort of like dark matter. Invisible.

 

[BeAChooser]

We detect planets around other stars by the effects gravity has on the star's movement. We don't see the planet but we detect it.

But at least we KNOW that planets exist and that they tend to orbit stars.

 

[BeAChooser]

He means detecting the specific particles that comprise dark matter. We see their gravitational effect, so they must be there

Not if something else can adequately explain the same observations. Take the rotation curves of galaxies, for instance. The big bang proponents claim dark matter is needed to explain them, but the plasma cosmologists have proven that isn't true. Particle in cell calculations modeling known electrodynamic effects with Alfven's electric model of galaxies have produced the same rotation curves as observed.

They are much more than names, we know what properties they would have.

Yeah, you just can't detect them, for some reason.

so we need new experiments to see whether they exist.

Yeah, pour in the cash. I'm sure skeptigirl is eager to contribute.

 

[BeAChooser]

I don't suppose you have heard of nutrinos have you?

You mean neutrinos?

Said to exist and matching the data are different.

I suggest you do a search on the published work of Anthony Peratt at LANL.

Quote:
Take the rotation curve data I mentioned earlier.

yes matter closer to the core of rotation moves faster than it should.

No, the problem I'm referring to is the flatness of the curve as one moves out into the outer regions of the galaxy. If the mass in the galaxy follows the same pattern as the luminosity (i.e., visible mass), the rotation speeds in the outer reaches of the galaxy should drop off, but direct observation shows that's not the case. Instead, the rotation rate reaches a peak and then remains more or less constant as you move outward. Anthony Peratt has demonstrated that plasma cosmology can explain this. Big Bang cosmologists have to call on a yet to be determined and yet to be found (after more than 30 years of looking!) halo of dark matter to produce the same result.

Quote: Plasma cosmologists have an explanation that doesn't involve this mysterious dark matter

Really, put your money where your mouth is, how does it work, how does EM make the stars move faster?

Quote: , that involves physics that we have immense experience with over the last hundred years, that involves physics we can (and have) demonstrated in the lab as producing such a rotation curve.

really, the EM force can do that, post a link. Put your cards on the table.

Your wish is my command but let me first point out that actually, our government has been putting YOUR money into finding that dark matter (and dark energy). Lots and lots of it.

Now in case you don't know by now, in 1937 Hannes Alfven (you know who he is, right?), proposed that our galaxy contained a large-scale magnetic field and that charged particles moved in spiral orbits within it, owing to forces exerted by the field. Plasma carried the electrical currents which create the magnetic field. Now Anthony Peratt used that model, and the large particle in cell codes at LANL on their really big computers, to model galaxies. Here is a paper by Peratt (who was once a graduate student of Alfven, btw) entitled "Advances in the Mathematical modelling of Astrophysical and Space Phenomena". It has lot of interesting material in it. See Section 3.3 which focuses on Rotational velocities and the results from that modeling. Also check out Section 4.

http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/downloads/AdvancesII.annotated.pdf

And here's another article by Dr Peratt on the subject:

http://www.cosmology.info/2005conference/wps/gallo_1.pdf

Here's a portion of what he says ... "When Plasma Physicists add known ElectroMagnetic Plasma effects into the Gravitational dynamics of Spiral Galaxies, they obtain the observed rotational dynamics of Spiral Galaxies. For scientifically published references, see the very extensive list below. Although EM Plasma Physics is well known and experimentally tested, the detailed calculations are very complex and require supercomputers that operate for months. There is no question that EM Plasma effects dominate the early formation of a Spiral Galaxy from an ionized plasma. As time progresses, matter is accreted into star formation. Then gravitational effects become stronger, as EM plasma effects become weaker as the inter-stellar plasma density decreases with time evolution. These effects are sufficiently complex that I can not describe them with simple arguments or simple mathematics. Supercomputers are necessary. ... snip ... PRIMARY REFERENCES. (1) “Physics of the Plasma Universe” by Anthony Peratt. (Springer-Verlag, 1992). ... snip ... (3) “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.(1.7M), (4) “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 (1.9M). In the above references, the evolution of galaxies from plasma inhomogeneities (which yield electric fields, currents and magnetic fields) is simulated. These calculations indicate a time evolution from Elliptical to Irregular to Spiral Galaxies."

Now why don't you put your cards on the table and tell everyone how much money has been wasted in the last 30 years looking for dark matter?

Quote: Yet read any Big Bang astronomy book and you find no mention of this. Why is that reasonable?

Because it is a gravitational effect?

You can only claim that if you invoke a highly UNscientific explanation ... a theory that claims vast amounts of non-falsifiable, invisible matter with bizarre properties (as the subject article of this thread suggests) in located in the halo of galaxies. Read the paper above and you'll see that Peratt has something to say about the consistency of observations to that, too.

Can EM make an object orbit more quickley than it should?

If your are referring to the velocities of stars in the outer regions of galaxies, the answer is clearly yes, as Peratt has proven. Or are you talking now about why the objects moving around the galactic core are moving at the rate they do? That has more to do with believing in a black hole than dark matter, per se.

But let's examine that belief, including the belief that black holes explain the high energy jets seen emanating from active galaxies and quasars.

Eric Lerner proposed decades ago that since there is considerable evidence to suggest that galaxies have very large currents moving in a manner similar to that of a plasma focus (a device that works somewhat like Alfven's electric galaxy model), quasars are in essence the energy being released by plasmoids (Peratt might call them "pinches") at their center (an effect that happens in a plasma focus device).

According to Lerner, the filaments that form a plasmoid might be at most a hundred light years across, and within that plasmoid, there will be a much smaller region, consistent with the deduced size of quasars, that is actually emitting the high energy jets seen in the laboratory. These jets are supposedly necessary if a galaxy is to even form. He also noted that his theory explains why jets are sometimes observed in only one direction at a time.

Now I find this theory far more compelling than postulating the notion that there is a invisible black hole in every galaxy. There is an inherent appeal in the idea that physics observed here on earth can explain physics observed light years away. Now I'm not suggesting that black holes don't exist. Maybe, maybe not. I'm only asking whether the cause of the phenomena seen in most quasars, active galaxies and even ordinary galaxies might not be something far more mundane than a black hole, especially given evidence that points to the presence of intense electromagnetic fields in space and our ability to produce jets in laboratory experiments that, at least crudely, model galactic magnetic fields?

Here's an excerpt from a description, by a mainstream astronomer, of recent observations of a quasar (http://www.physorg.com/news73057202.html): " Astronomer Rudy Schild of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics (CfA) and his colleagues studied the quasar known as Q0957+561 ...snip ... This quasar holds a central compact object containing as much mass as 3-4 billion Suns. Most would consider that object to be a "black hole," but Schild's research suggests otherwise. "We don't call this object a black hole because we have found evidence that it contains an internally anchored magnetic field that penetrates right through the surface of the collapsed central object, and that interacts with the quasar environment," commented Schild. ... snip ... Through careful analysis, the team teased out details about the quasar's core. For example, their calculations pinpointed the location where the jets form. "How and where do these jets form? Even after 60 years of radio observations, we had no answer. Now the evidence is in, and we know," said Schild. Schild and his colleagues found that the jets appear to emerge from two regions 1,000 astronomical units in size (about 25 times larger than Pluto-Sun distance) located 8,000 astronomical units directly above the poles of the central compact object. ... snip ... However, that location would be expected only if the jets were powered by reconnecting magnetic field lines that were anchored to the rotating supermassive compact object within the quasar. By interacting with a surrounding accretion disk, such spinning magnetic field lines spool up, winding tighter and tighter until they explosively unite, reconnect and break, releasing huge amounts of energy that power the jets. "This quasar appears to be dynamically dominated by a magnetic field internally anchored to its central, rotating supermassive compact object," stated Schild. ... snip ... "Our finding challenges the accepted view of black holes," said Leiter. "We've even proposed a new name for them - Magnetospheric Eternally Collapsing Objects, or MECOs," a variant of the name first coined by Indian astrophysicist Abhas Mitra in 1998."

Now compare the above description to the model of a quasar proposed by Erin Lerner. It's not incompatible. And Schild is actually attacking Big Bang's Black Hole concept but introducing a new, unproven entity of his own. But while he might be right about black holes not fitting the observations, astronomer Schild is inventing physics when he talks of anchored magnetic fields, breaking magnetic fields and reconnecting magnetic fields. Just ask an electrical engineer like Donald Scott. He has a whole chapter on that topic in his book.

And consider recent discoveries such as this: http://ucsdnews.ucsd.edu/newsrel/science/mcquasar.asp "Discovery By UCSD Astronomers Poses A Cosmic Puzzle: Can A 'Distant' Quasar Lie Within A Nearby Galaxy?" Is this compatible with the notion that Quasars are what the Big Bang community has long held they are? No, the black hole concept is in trouble.

Now I've already mentioned that Peratt has created large scale super computer models of galaxies, based on known electromagnetic and plasma physics. These produce jets with the time, spatial and intensity characteristics actually observed coming from quasars. Peratt noted that the synchrotron radiation produced in computer simulations using such a model produces jets with an energy level comparable to that of Cygnus A, which the Big Bang community claims must be a black hole. Those models are able to "evolve" galaxies of all types observed (including spirals). And as I pointed out above, the rotation curves of the simulated galaxies are flat, negating the the need for large amounts of dark matter in a halo.

Now as to what his models say about the the velocity of stars very near the center of galaxies, there is Peratt said, again in http://www.cosmology.info/2005conference/wps/gallo_1.pdf: "Following are the measured velocity profiles for four specific Spiral Galaxies from Ref 4, Fig 14. “Velocity Profile” means the rotational speed of the spiral galaxy as measured from the center of the spiral galaxy. The peculiarities are that the rotational speed is very low at the galactic center and rises quickly to an approximately constant rotational speed away from the center. This is completely different than expected from gravitational forces alone. For instance, in the simplest Solar System model, the planets closest to the center rotate at the very fastest speeds, and gradually decrease in speed at larger distances from the center. ... snip ... Above is another measured velocity profile for a specific Spiral Galaxy (Ref 4, Fig 14), again with behavior completely different than anticipated from gravitational forces alone. Following is a computer simulation of the velocity profile for a Spiral Galaxy from Ref 4, Fig 14 including ElectroMagnetic Plasma effects. Notice the similarity of the measured velocity profiles with the computer simulation including ElectroMagnetic Plasma effects for these Spiral Galaxies. “The plasma core rotates very nearly as a solid body, while the spiral arms grow in length as they trail out along the magnetic isobars.” See Ref 4 for explicit details. The measured behavior is all very different than that obtained from gravitational effects alone, but the inclusion of ElectroMagnetic Plasma effects mimic the observed behavior. That is, the rotational speed is very low at the galactic center and rises very quickly to an approximately constant rotational speed at distances away from the center."

Does that answer your question?

Now let me continue with the rest of the story.

As to the source of energy in a quasar, Lerner stated it is "the rotational energy of an entire galaxy, augmented by the gravitational energy released as the galaxy contracts," "converted to electrical power by the disk-generator action and concentrated in the smaller filaments moving towards the galaxy core." He said that without the periodic release of energy from the plasmoid, galaxies would not even form. He went on to suggest that a similar phenomena is probably responsible for the jets coming from objects such as protostars since in forming they have to shed rotational and gravitational energy, as well, and he notes that black holes cannot be used to explain those jets. Can anyone yet explain Herbig-Haro jets like this

in a completely non- electromagnetic cosmology? I don't think so.

Check out the book "Colliding Galaxies: The Universe in Turmoil" by Barry Parker, copyright 1990. I don't think this author had any bias towards plasma cosmology as he didn't mention anything but gravity and black holes. And I don't believe the picture of the galaxy he presented has significantly changed. In a section titled "At The Core" in a chapter titled "Is Our Galaxy Exploding", Parker noted that "Kwok-Yung Lo of the University of Illinois has been studying" the region near the core "for the last several years. He recently made a detailed radio map of it using the VLA." Lo is quoted as saying "The whole cavity inside the ring of whirling matter is filled with streams of ionized gas." Parker then writes that "the most intense energy source, both in radio and infrared regions, is right at the center of the clear region." He states that astronomers once thought that the mass of the object at the center was over a million solar masses but as the region has been studied in more detail, this figure has become controversial. Now, "According to Lo the mass range for the object at the center is between a few hundred solar masses and a million. Lo and his colleages have shown that the radio source at the center is exceedingly small. 'It's only about the size of the solar system,' he said. 'This seems to be evidence in favor of a black hole.'" But as I just noted, black holes are not the only theory where horrendous amounts of energy are produced in a very small region.

A section titled "Filaments" in the above book is also intriguing. It shows evidence of the type of currents and magnetic fields postulated by plasma cosmologists. Even back in 1990 they had evidence of these ... unlike dark matter, dark energy and strings. Parker wrote the following: "Another strange feature of the central region is the presence of huge filaments. In 1984 Mark Morris of UCLA and Farhad Yusef- Zadeh and Don Chance of Columbia University, using the VLA, discovered three enormous parallel arks of gas approximately 10-20 light-years thick. They are over 150 light-years long and project out from the plane of the disk. Studies soon showed that arcs of this type had to be composed of high-speed particles trapped by extremely strong magnetic fields. ... at this time we still do not know what causes them." "Soon after these filaments were discovered, much larger filaments were discovered by a Japanese team of radio astronomers of the University of Tokyo's Radio Observatory. They are horseshoe- shaped, and rise about 700 light-years above the galactic plane. They resemble the giant arches of gas that are sometimes seen on the sun, but they are, of course, billions of times larger. It is believed that they are high-speed particles trapped in magnetic fields."

Note that there is an artist's illustration in the book depicting the core region. What struck me back then is that it looks very much like the plasma device photograph and plasmoid model that Lerner has in his book "The Big Bang Never Happened". In other words, it depicts multiple filaments that fountain out of a small central core then loop around and reenter on the opposite side of the core ... just like Alfven, Lerner and Peratt postulated. Furthermore, if the mass is near the lower end of the range Lo mentioned, I see no reason why Lerner's plasma model could not be valid. The central plasmoid hypothesized by Lerner would certainly be a very massive object.

So, tell me, do you know whether the group advocating black holes in the last 20 years has come up with an explanation for these "filaments" based on gravity alone and without resorting to some other mathematical construct or substance that can't even be detected? Because Plasma Cosmology could explain them more than two decades ago with a highly coherent model. In fact, this should count as a prediction by plasma cosmologists that's been satisfied. After all, Lerner submitted his paper describing such features in galaxies well before the VLA results were ever published.

Let me repeat. Lerner's book, Peratt's writings and Donald's Scott's books are actually full of referenced data showing the existence of currents and magnetic fields at all scales. They describe *observed* filamentary phenomena starting at laboratory scale all the way up to radio telescope data that proves the existance of filaments in our own galaxy that are over a hundred light years long and several light years wide. Peratt states that those fields are "nearly identical in geometry and strength with simulations of Birkeland currents in studies of galaxy formation." He and Lerner go on to indicate that there is no "known" reason to preclude the existance of filaments of much larger size and suggest that the large scale "bubble-like" grouping of galaxies may be evidence that such filaments exist. Something to that effect. If you accept that "super" filaments carrying "super" currents exist, then they contend that they will naturally produce galaxies and quasars, based on known electromagnetic and plasma physics. Without having to resort to missing mass or any other esoteric notion.

So I challenge you to check out the foundations for plasma physics before simply dismissing it. You will see that not only are electromagnetic forces sufficently powerful to form and shape galaxies, but this fact has been demonstrated in large scale computers models that produced results that explain a number of observations in the universe that Big Bang cosmology has failed to explain ... and without inventing black holes in every object, missing mass, inflation, super strings, dark energy, or cosmological constants and physics that change over time. Alfven and others have already shown that the physics we understand scale from the laboratory to the earth's magnetosphere (a factor of a billion). By scaling these physics another billion, Anthony Peratt "formed" galaxies with computer models that match observations of ordinary and radio galaxies in terms of structure, rotation, jetting and other features. Experiments at Los Alamos confirmed that the same phenomena apply to currents from microamps to megaamps, a trillion fold jump. So the physics necessary to explain even the formation and behavior of galaxies is there at all scales. Not without gravity but with the HELP of gravity. And with, at least, forces and physics we are sure exist.

Therefore, I think it is wise to keep an open mind rather than simply declare Big Bang Cosmology "the reality". The truth is that if anyone is ignoring facts and physics, it is the Big Bang cosmologists. The various sites which propose the gravity only solution never even mention the alternative ... never even mention the effect of phenomena like http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/CIV.html "IMMENSE FLOWS OF CHARGED PARTICLES DISCOVERED BETWEEN THE STARS". The proof is that I can pick up most books on big bang cosmology and never find the words plasma or electromagnetism listed in the index. You can barely find the word plasma on NASA's websites (but they sure like to talk about black holes). They almost always refer to "gas" when when they are actually talking about are plasmas. Don't let them keep you in the dark. Educate yourself.

 

[Yllanes]

Big Bang proponents hypothesize (actually claim as fact) the existence of black holes in nearly every structure we can see out there in space. They need them to explain what we see. For example, the jets we see coming from stars and galaxies require this explanation. Yet the originator of the black hole concept, Dr John Wheeler, once said that "To me, the formation of a naked singularity is equivalent to jumping across the Gulf of Mexico. I would be willing to bet a million dollars that it can't be done. But I can't prove that it can't be done."

That quote from Wheeler is completely misinterpreted there. A naked singularity is not the same thing as a black hole. He says he doesn't believe the former exists. You can bet he believes in black holes.

A naked singularity is a singularity that is not surrounded by an event horizon. In an ordinary black hole there is always an event horizon that protects us from unpleasant things that may be going on inside (loss of causality, closed timelike curves, etc.) In addition to this, attemps to theoretically construct naked singularities have failed. For all these reasons, the Cosmic Censor Conjecture is introduced, saying that gravitational collapse always results in a black hole and not in a naked singularity.

 

[Cuddles]

BeAChooser, please pay attention.

Dark matter is not the big bang. Dark energy is not the big bang. Rotational curves are not the big bang. Nothing you have said has any bearing whatsoever on the big bang.

Even assuming you are right, dark matter doesn't exist and it's all about EM fields in plasmas, this says absolutely nothing about thie big bang. If plasma cosmology is correct, where did the plasma come from? The big bang.

No matter what happens on a local scale, everything is still moving away from everything else. The only way this can happen is if everything was in the same place at some time previously. If you have any evidence that this is not the case, feel free to present it. As it stands, it is very obvious you have no idea what you are talking about. Plasma cosmology is a theory about mechanics, not about origin. Until you understand this there is absolutely no point trying to have a conversation with you.

 

[Yllanes]

Dark matter is not the big bang. Dark energy is not the big bang. Rotational curves are not the big bang. Nothing you have said has any bearing whatsoever on the big bang.

Cuddles, that's a very good point that I (and others) haven't made clear and deserves repeating.

 

[Dancing David]

BTW here is a recnt article:http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/ser...00926000001000091000001&idtype=cvips&gifs=yes

And it would appear that at least some discussion is taking place regarding plasma and astrophysics:
http://www.plasmas.org/space-astrophys.htm

and some more

http://WWW.ASTRO.AUTH.GR/Science-Subjects/Plasma/Plasma_Papers.html

 

[BeAChooser]

What *data* can the plasma cosmology explain?

Like the Hubble constant?

Plasma cosmologists have no problem with the actual work of Hubble. He measured the distance to a small number of galaxies using Cepheid variable stars and developed a relationship between brightness and distance. He then looked at redshift and saw an apparent linear relationship between redshift and the distances he'd measured. BUT, he did not feel that redshift was necessarily caused by an object's velocity. He said it MIGHT be. He said that "IF the redshifts are doppler shift ... the observations as they stand lead to an anomaly of a closed universe, curiously small and dense, and it may be added, suspiciously young. On the other hand, IF redshifts are not doppler effects, these anomalies disappear and the region observed appears as a small, homogenous, but insignificant portion of a universe extended indefinitely in space and time."

Plasma cosmologists will agree with the above statement. The key words, however, are MIGHT and IF. Astronomers never really looked into the question of whether something else might cause redshift. They simply dropped the IF from the first part of the Hubble's statement and made it dogma. Plasma cosmologists, however, have looked into the possibility of other causes and they say other phenomena than just velocity can cause redshift. And they can prove that must be true because they can SEE clear links between high and low redshift objects and even see high redshift objects that must be in front of low redshift objects.

What article have you read that should have been in a peer reviewed journal. Put it on the table.

You are a demanding fellow.

You want some sources? Sure ...

http://quasars.org/ngc7603.htm I discussed this case ... NGC 7603 ... earlier in this thread. Have any comment about that? Do you know that a request by Arp to have the Chandra X-ray observatory look at the two quasars in the plasma bridge was turned down? Why would they do that in a instance so controversial? Wouldn't you want to know if they are x-ray sources?

Here are examples of apparent clustering of high redshift objects around low redshift galaxies: http://quasars.org/galaxies/default.htm

Here are some images of the MANY cases where high redshift objects are in close association with low redshift objects: http://quasars.org/qso-gals/default.htm

Here are some examples from Arp, directly: http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/ApJ/journal/issues/ApJ/v525n2/39505/39505.html

Taken collectively and looked at statistically, all these *coincidental* (according to the big bang crowd) alignments are difficult if not scientifically impossible to explain away. In fact, Arp concluded in the above paper (which was, by the way, published in the peer reviewed Astrophysical Journal in 1999) that "Physically the alignments are confirmed by the evidence for ejection of material in opposite directions from nuclei of active galaxies. There is a clear tendency for these ejections to be along the least obstructed direction, the minor axis of rotating galaxies." He calculated the probability that the quasar triplets found in two fields surveyed by the Westerbork radio telescope would be close to the central object, have an alignment across the central galaxy and have similar redshifts to each other is 10^^-8 to 10^^-9. Highly unlikely, wouldn't you say? And that was in a peer reviewed paper.

He further noted that "medium-redshift quasars are brighter and fall farther from the active galaxies. The higher, z >= 2 quasars are fainter and fall closer to the active galaxies. When the active galaxy is severely disturbed, the quasars fall closer, are more numerous, and are fainter and more similar in redshift." These are all consistent with the notion they were ejected from the galaxies. It's papers like this that the Big Bang community is increasingly reluctant to publish ... perhaps because they can make no rational response and can see the writing on the wall. But do you want to try? Time to put your cards on the table.

Here's another case ... one that was presented by Halton Arp in his book "Seeing Red" and discussed in Scott's book. You can see what all the hubbub is about if you go here: http://perso.orange.fr/lempel/red_shift_NGC_4319_uk.htm. It has photos that clearly show what appears to be a bridge linking NGC 4319 (a spiral galaxy with z=0.006) and Mark 205 (a quasar with z=0.07). Yet Mark 205 is supposedly 15 times farther away. At Arp's website ( http://www.haltonarp.com/articles/rebuttals ), he discussed the apparent effort of the mainstream astronomy community to hide this evidence from the public, as well as some other dishonesty by the Big Bang community. Any comment?

ESO 1327-206 is another example where a very high redshift quasar is seen along a plasma tail that appears to be from a very low redshift object: http://www.astr.ua.edu/keel/agn/redshifts.html

Here ( http://www.astronomy-mall.com/Adventures.In.Deep.Space/arpredshift.htm ) you will find images of some very interesting galaxy/quasar pairs. There is quasar NGC 1232A along one of the arms of NGC 1232. There is quasar NGC 1097A visibly connected to the Fornax galaxy (NGC 1097) along one of its arms. And there is M82, a galaxy that has gaseous filaments exploding from it in a direction that also lines up with a radio source and 4 nearby quasars. What a coincidence ... or is it?

Here's a peer reviewed article by Arp (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/ApJ/journal/issues/ApJ/v549n2/51780/51780.html) discussing the relationship between quasars and clusters of galaxies. He has a graphic that shows clearly how remarkable the M82 cluster is in that area of the sky. Arp's conclusion from that and the other examples in his paper? "It is suggested that in the examples in the present paper the continuing ejection and activity occurring in evolving quasars leads to a breaking up of some of these objects into clusters of small galaxies as they travel farther out along the ejection paths. It is noted that many of the galaxy clusters discussed here are strong X-ray sourcesthe only large class of extragalactic X-ray sources known besides quasars and AGNs." Not unlike what the plasma cosmologists have been suggesting.

Here's material from Donald Scott's book http://www.electric-cosmos.org/arp.htm showing (among other things) a visible feature connecting NGC 7320 and NGC 7320C, respectively low and high redshift objects. That web page also contains a GREAT picture of NGC 7319, which is a low redshift galaxy that has a high redshift quasar right near the middle of it ... near the brightest part of NGC 7319. And a close up of the image even shows a jet extending out from the center of the galaxy in the direction of the quasar. Oh oh... care to comment?

Here's an interesting article: http://www.astr.ua.edu/keel/galaxies/arp.html Note where it stated that "Galaxies are known to be associated with low-redshift QSOs both around the QSO itself and nearby ... snip .... It seems too much to ask that whole groups of galaxies can share the same disease and exactly mimic distance, or that there be two populations of QSOs so contrived as to have no observable distances but be of vastly different luminosity. ... snip ... Gravitational lensing will work only if the lens and QSO are at approximately their Hubble-law distances; this argument has been set out explicitly by Dar 1991 (ApJLett 382, L1). At the least, the QSO must be beyond the lens galaxy, which already has redshifts of order 0.5. Again, one must invoke quite a coincidence otherwise. Huchra has admitted orally that his first thought on discovering the Einstein cross was the chilling thought that Arp might have been right all these years."

Here's Arp with another gem showing that the Big Bang community has been snookering folks. http://www.haltonarp.com/articles/astronomy_by_press_release "When X-ray telescopes found strong X-ray sources in galaxies they said, aha, this is too strong to be an X-ray star so it must be a black hole in orbit around a star - a binary with a massive black hole revolving around it. Discovery of these now MASSIVE Black holes was so exciting that innumerable papers have appeared showing the X-ray positions and deep photographs at the positions the objects. Strangely, when these objects were seen optically no one took spectra in order to see what they actually were. Finally a paper appeared in a referred Journal where the authors showed the spectra of two of them to be that of high redshift quasars! Just to cement the case they looked at previously identified quasar in or close to galaxies and in 24 out of 24 cases the quasars belonged to the class of Ultra Luminous X-ray Sources. This result is a double disaster in that the massive Black Holes turned out to be high redshift quasars, not a Black Hole in a binary star. Perhaps worse, they have been accepted as members of nearby galaxies and therefore cannot be out at the edge of the universe. Bye bye Big Bang and all that fundamental physics." Comment?

From the same source above "Ever more recent press releases report the finding in cosmic microwave background radiation, of cooler spots about one degree radius around supposedly very distant galaxy clusters. One of the authors was quoted as saying Our results may ultimately undermine the belief that the Universe is dominated by a cold dark matter particle and even more enigmatic dark energy. Well that is standard closing for many press releases. But seriously, the 1 degree radius agrees with observed quasar families evidentially being ejected from active parent galaxies" Comment? Or shall we just move on to your next complaint?

Quote:
And since when did science invoke invisible magic particles, forces and magic events to explain every deficiency in a theory?

I don't suppose you know about the neutrino?

ROTFLOL! Neutrinos aren't magic. They are just ordinary physics that we clearly understand.

In 1930 Wolfgang Pauli proposed the existence of a particle to account for the missing energy in nuclear beta decays (which they could directly measure in the lab). They didn't have to infer it was energy that was missing ... the could measure it. In 1933 Perrin showed the mass of this particle had to be very small and Anderson discovered the positron, verifying Dirac's theory and confirming the idea of the neutrino in Fermi's mind. Fermi named the particle and built his theory of beta decay. But they quickly realized it was going to be real challenge to detect it because it would be able to penetrate light years of ordinary matter. It wasn't until 1951 that someone felt the means were available to do the job. Fred Reines at Los Alamos took up the challenge, built a detector and failed. It wasn't sensitive enough. So they built another better one, and by 1956 had detected them ... in quantity.

Contrast that with the dark matter situation. First, we don't really know what's missing out there. You say it's mass. Plasma cosmologists say its an understanding of electromagnetic effects on plasmas. And have convincingly demonstrated that, I think, for some situations. Second, how long has the Big Bang community been looking for dark matter. Over 30 years? Any closer than you were 30 years ago? Now be honest. And by the way, the scientific principle that led Wolfgang Pauli to imagine the particle was Conservation Of Energy. How ironic that the Big Bang community throws conservation of energy out the window in their theory.

Or the pion

The pion was again a particle whose discovery stemmed from the realization that something (which could actually be seen and measured here on earth) was missing in nuclear interactions that were being studied in labs here on earth. And again, the time between realizing they were missing something (1935) and actually detecting that something (1947) was a fraction of the time astrophysicists have been looking for dark matter, even with a World War getting in the way, and confusing that something with something else (the muon) along the way. Oh and one more thing. They've detected pions in cosmic rays. Have they detected dark matter?

I can go on for a long time.

So can I. What went on in physics in those years wasn't magic. It was an application of scientific empirical method with experiments to confirm the proposals built on a solid already proven foundation. As opposed to the deductive method that the Big Bang proponents rely on in making almost all of their claims.

Quote: Since when did science start using circular reasoning (like I pointed out earlier)? That is a new phenomena in *science* as far as I can tell.

So without using the word 'rotation curve', show how EM cam make objects orbit faster than they should from observed matter.

You don't even understand what I'm saying ... or you do and to avoid answering you try to change the subject. Well I think I answered your question so why don't you now answer mine ... since when did science start using circular reasoning?

Quote: I think you are naive to think that, given that's already happened and still plasma cosmology gets virtually no mention in ANY astronomy literature.

What *data* does it explain? Give us the data. Stop with the hand wringing conspiracy theory. Give us the data.

Well now that I have, what are you going to do? Ignore it? Or admit you were wrong?

Quote:
What is happening is that two seperate communities of scientists are forming. The plasma cosmologists are scientists and they are busy holding conventions and publishing their works in peer reviewed journals.

You just contradicted yourself, if they are in peer reviewed journals then there isn't a conspiracy.

No, I didn't contradict myself. The problem is that a priesthood that relies on deductive method to explain things is now in control of most of the mainstream astronomy and cosmology publications, and funding sources. They feel threatened by the empirical method so that they automatically turn down articles that support plasma cosmology using empirical methods and automatically accept articles that postulate black holes, call plasma "gas" and theorize other magic to explain the observations. Which is why the plasma community is going it's own way and war is on.

Scott has many good examples in his book of how NASA and the mainstream astronomers slant the presentation of the facts and refuse to publish alternative explanations. Recall the M82 case mentioned above. From Scott's book, here is how NASA describes what they saw when they had Chandra look at it: "Massive stars are forming and expiring in M82 at a rate ten times higher than in our galaxy. The bright spots in the center are supernova remnants and x-ray binaries. There are some of the brightest objects known. The luminosity of the x-ray binaries suggest that most contain a black hole. The diffuse x-ray light in the image extends over several thousand light years, and is caused by multimillion-degree gas flowing out of M82." Now what do you see missing in that explanation? Hmmmmmm?

Or are they just speculative articles?

Well let's see what you have to say about some of the data I've now provided and the way the two cosmologies treat it.

Well let's start with dark matter. Has it been observed. Really observed?

That is not some huge amount of particles

Apparently you are unaware that Big Bang cosmologists say that 96 percent of the universe is missing. They say ordinary matter of the kind that makes you and the stars is only 4 percent of the cosmos. They say dark matter is 20 percent of the total. Dark energy is 76 percent. What was that you were saying about it not being "some huge amount of particles"?

Read the next line:

There are no apparent large scale EM forces.

It's a lie, as I think the material the plasma cosmologists have (just some of which I've quoted or linked here) clearly shows. A lie that indicates the desperation of your side in this argument.

Quote: And huge amounts of money have been invested in the belief they exist.

Yeah, where? Are you sure?

And this comment by you shows why you are desperate. And why the average person should care about this issue. The cost of the many observatories and space probes that have been designed primarily to help prove Big Bang is in the billions. Particle accelerators (like the Large Hadron Collider) have also cost the world billions and have been justified on the basis they will recreate the conditions near the start of the Big Bang. Scores of research teams have been active for decades around the world looking for proof of the various particles the Big Bang community hopes will explain the missing mass and the particles missing from the sun's emanations. They've built expensive instruments in tunnels, mines and caves in numerous countries. And then we have the salaries of all those Big Bang cosmologists and astrophysicists over the last 30 years.

And during that time, what do you think they've spent on Plasma Cosmology and the instruments needed to study it's underpinnings?

Quote:
I read that over 20 international teams expending vast amounts of money in caves, tunnels and mines are searching for these particles.

Ah, that is particle physics, you don't really know what you are talking about. That is not BBE physics at all.

So an effort to look for a form of dark matter that is only imagined because something is missing in the Big Bang model, isn't BB physics at all? Do you ever listen to yourself? ROTFLOL!

Quote:
Any success? There have been claims they were on the verge of success since 2000. Any success yet? I know the Italians claimed they did, but was anyone able to corroborate their claim? No? I think in fact that scientists now think the Italians were fooled by environmental effects. So how about it?

So how about Gell-Mann and the pion? Or the Yukawa particles?

But of course none of the particles you offered are dark matter. So again, I ask, ANY success in finding it after 30 years? Or will you continue running from the question?

Quote:
Aren't WIMPS still a mathematical ghost imagined in a desperate attempt to explain observations that plasma cosmologists believe can be explained with matter and forces that we do know exist?

You keep saying that. Where do they explain the rotation of stars

Well now that I've shown where and how they explain the rotation curves of galaxies (which is what I think you actually meant to say), how about you answer the question I asked?

And if you really did mean star, I'll be happy to explain why the plasma cosmologists think they rotate at the speeds they do, after you try to explain using gravity-only why they do. (Folks, this should be interesting. )

 

[BeAChooser]

Um dude I hate to tell you this.

Your beloved theory does not explain the Hubble constant.

"Um dude", I hate to tell you that I proved at the start of the last post that you clearly don't even know what you are talking about.

Why aren't there other observation that show the large scale EM force in intra galactic space?

ROTFLOL! "Intra" galactic ... you mean inside galaxies? Are you serious? I suggest you take a close look at some of the material I been posting the last two days. You are WRONG.

The super colliders do not prop up the BBE theory

Oh goody ... I get to prove you wrong again.

You've heard of the Large Hadron Collider? You do know what it is, right? For those who don't it's the biggest and most expensive yet!

Excerpts from their own FAQ: http://public.web.cern.ch/public/Content/Chapters/AskAnExpert/LHC-en.html#q12 "What are the main goals of the LHC? (BAC - they list three reasons and here are two of them) ... snip ... A very popular idea that could partly explain why all the matter we see in the Universe counts for only 4% of the total mass (BAC - that's the Big Bang theory folks with all it's invisible dark matter and energy), is called supersymmetry, or SUSY. SUSY predicts that for each known particle there is a 'supersymmetric' partner. If SUSY is right, then supersymmetric particles should be found at the LHC. ... snip ... The LHC will also help us to solve the mystery of antimatter. Matter and antimatter must have been produced in the same amounts at the time of the Big Bang. From what we have observed so far, our Universe is made of only matter. Why? The LHC could provide an answer. (BAC - yep, they are talking about answering a problem with the Big Bang again)"

And for those (like David) who don't think this is expensive and who don't think a lot of careers depend on selling it, here's another source:

http://seedmagazine.com/news/2006/07/why_a_large_hadron_collider.php "The Large Hadron Collider (LHC) currently under construction at CERN is the greatest basic science endeavor in history. Roughly half of the world's particle physicists, 7,000 individuals, make the Collider their workplace."

You have reached the point where you need to start showing your evidence.

And now that I have, you've reached the point where you need to respond to the specifics I've noted. Let's see if you do.