Another Problem With Big Bang?

[BeAChooser]

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
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.

So you have your head in the sand.

 

[TV's Frank]

I'm still waiting for my 4 numbers, BeAChooser.

 

[Dancing David]

Yeah, let's talk about that a moment. How long have you physicists been trying to create a sustained nuclear fusion reaction? Fifty years? And have you succeeded? (sarcasm)

What happened at Eniwitok? Teller thought it was fusion. i would like to hear the alternative.

You pursue that search because you think it's possible. Afterall, you believe the energy coming from the sun comes from such a reaction deep in it's interior. But what if that belief is wrong?

It could be, so what happened at Eniwitok? The hydrogen bomb?

 

[Stellafane]

As an amateur astronomer, I have to confess that I don't like the Big Bang theory. I'm not saying it's wrong necessarily, but there are aspects of it that give me indigestion.

For instance, when I see things tacked onto it like the "cosmological constant" (a.k.a. the "fifth force" or "anti-gravity) my mind screams "epicycles!" (Epicycles were the weird planetary motions tacked onto the Ptolemaic Theory in an attempt to explain why the planets don't act the way they should in a true geocentric system.) I also don't like having to invent things like dark matter and strings to explain the unseen. One of the great leaps of the human intellect was when Hutton postulated that mountains and continents weren't created by some cataclysmic forces of the past, but were instead products of normal processes that occur today. Therefore, I intuitively gravitate towards a cosmological theory that can explain things using the materials and physical laws we observe around us, without the need for exotic things that only exist Out There.

I also support the idea that favored perspectives do not exist. Thus, just as there's no "center" or true "edge" of the universe, there's also no beginning or end -- on a universal scale, such concepts are artifacts of the human mind, rather than objective "reality" (if such a thing exists). There's also the "something out of nothing" aspect of the Big Bang that just doesn't make any sense to me on any level, and almost begs for a Creator to set things in motion (or at least seems to leave the door open for one).

The Big Bang is no doubt the best theory we have at the moment, and it works wonderfully well in so many ways. But so did Ptolemy's system, for a lot longer. I still sort of support it. But there's many times when I wonder if the Big Bang theory is our attempt feel as though we know something that we're just not sufficiently evolved to understand.

 

[Invidious]

As an amateur astronomer, I have to confess that I don't like the Big Bang theory. I'm not saying it's wrong necessarily, but there are aspects of it that give me indigestion.

...snip...
There's also the "something out of nothing" aspect of the Big Bang that just doesn't make any sense to me on any level, and almost begs for a Creator to set things in motion (or at least seems to leave the door open for one).
...snip...

Something out of nothing? It was my impression that the Big Bang Theory makes no predictions regarding what existed before the...er...Bang. For all we know, it could have been a tiny yet incredibly dense basket of cute, mewling kittens. The important thing is they exploded.

ETA: We are all made of kittens, to paraphrase Moby.

 

[Yllanes]

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.

Well then maybe plasma cosmologist should make up some invisible, undetectable, untestable entities like the big bang cosmologist have done. I now declare there is something out there called **SUPER PLASMA**, which doesn't obey the same rules as plasma here on earth and accounts for all we see. Now prove me wrong. See my point? That's where the deductive method has led you.

You have no point there. I said that the simplistic argument that there is a lot of plasma is not enough because one can then make the simplistic counter argument that plasma is neutral. You need explain how it works.

You pursue that search because you think it's possible. Afterall, you believe the energy coming from the sun comes from such a reaction deep in it's interior. But what if that belief is wrong?

Many plasma cosmologists are starting to think so and Donald Scott lays out a rather convincing case for that in his book.

OK, so according to you now even nuclear fusion doesn't work in the universe.

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 can't validate the truth of every claim made on every website that talks about magnetic fields or Plasma Cosmology. Just as you can't validate the contents of every website claiming that Big Bang is correct and expressing theories (like dark matter, dark energy, etc) that I think are utterly crackpot. You don't like the website http://www.physicsmyths.org.uk/darkmatter.htm says, fine. I offered it because it said something relevant about your claim that EM fields play no role in intergalactic space. Nothing more. Nothing less.

No, it doesn't work like that. You chose taht page as your source, I would stand by any sources I linked. That website does not only claim that the Big Bang theory is wrong, it claims that all of 20th century physics is wrong: special and general relativity, quantum mechanics... and makes its case with stupid and naive arguments. This is important for me: do you accept what that website says? For example, do you think special relativity is also wrong? Because if you do, then we have no common ground to stand and have a discussion about cosmology and this is going to be a waste of time.

And instead of responding to my debunking of your assertion, you focus on it (which I only referenced in passing as "food for thought") and ignore the LANL source, the Astrophysical Journal article, and the book by Anthony Peratt that I also cited. Frankly, I think you are running scared at this point.

I read one of your sources and it ahd no credibility. Before reading more I want to see what you think. So, do you think SR is wrong?

ROTFLOL! The reason you think this is strange is perhaps because you forget the work of Maxwell (as do most Big Bang astrophysicsists) and Kristian Birkland (who around 1900 proposed that electric currents come from the sun, flow through the upper atmosphere and cause auroras). Langmuir actually started studying electrical discharges in low pressure gases in 1909. But you are correct, it wasn't until about the 60's those working on plasmas really started focusing on stars, galaxies and the cosmos.

Listen, your quote said: 'were the predictions of a plasma universe, as developed at the end of the Nineteenth Century'. This doesn't make sense, because the plasma universe is from the 1960s. It is based in EM, of course, but so what? The predictions of plasma cosmology are not from the 19th century. This strikes me as the fallacy of saying that electromagnetism is old and thus good.

 

[BeAChooser]

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.

Yes, he believes in black holes. But he didn't initially believe in the existence of singularities ... which astrophysicists say are lurking inside black holes. And as far as black holes are concerned, he said that all details of in-falling material should be wiped out so only the net mass, charge and angular momentum remain. But now astronomers use blackholes to explain the material seen flying out from galaxies and quasars. And have had to alter the theories of magnetic fields to make that work ... in ways that contradict our understanding of magnetic fields for the past 100 years and which still haven't been demonstrated in the lab. And by the way ... isn't it the contention of some Big Bang proponents that the whole universe came from a naked singularity at one point ... something Wheeler said was ... well ... impossible?

In any case, I'm not saying black holes might not exist ... here and there ... but I think the reasons given by Big Bang proponents for claiming black holes exist in most of the objects we now see in the universe are more easily and more rationally explained using the physics promoted by plasma cosmologists.

 

[Invidious]

BAC,
I think you missed this so I thought I'd repost it for you so you don't have to go find it.

I've read your response to my "challenge", BeAChooser, and at no point did you actually do what I asked. So, out of politeness, I will repeat it. Please PROVIDE PREDICTED VALUES for the following:

-the age of the universe (at least older than the solar system!)
-the abundance of light elements (e.g., hydrogen, helium, and lithium)
-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
-the flatness of spatial curvature
-the matter power spectrum (e.g., scale of non-linear growth, presence of BAO peak)
-the lyman-alpha forest
-the luminosity-distance relations of type 1a supernova

For example:

If I were to go out and measure the spatial curvature of the universe, what does plasma cosmology predict to be the answer?

If I go looking for CMB anisotropies, at what multipole should I find the largest peak?

If I look for spectral index of CMB fluctuations, what does plasma cosmology say I will find?

If I go looking at the distribution of matter in the universe, what are the RMS fluctuations in 8 Mpc spheres?

You should get the idea. The above 4 questions have answers, from observations, that are simple numbers. There are very basic, fundamental aspects of our universe. So, from plasma cosmology, what should these numbers be? Feel free to give estimates and uncertainties with your answer, but try to be precise.

That's all I want. 4 numbers. That's all your post has to be. That's all. If you can't limit your post to 4 numbers and associated discussion, then I will not read it. If you start going on about "conspiracies" or anything like that, I will ignore it. If you start discussing standard cosmology, I will ignore it (you should be able to discuss the success of plasma cosmology independently of any perceived failings of standard cosmology).

It's time for plasma cosmology to get with the program. If you can't produce these very basic predictions, then it's not even wrong!

Standard LCDM cosmology has produced predictions for these 4 numbers. Can you?

 

[BeAChooser]

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.

See the sort of illogic that some of those advocating Big Bang promote, folks? Cuddles insists these things have nothing to do with the Big Bang theory, yet Big Bang cosmologists seem almost desperate to find them. I wonder why.

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.

Tell me, Cuddles ... if this

From http://ucsdnews.ucsd.edu/newsrel/science/mcquasar.asp

shows a high redshift quasar in front of a low redshift galaxy as many seem to believe ... what does that say about the most basic underpinnings of the Big Bang theory?

No matter what happens on a local scale, everything is still moving away from everything else.

Really? Then explain that photo.

 

[Yllanes]

Yes, he believes in black holes. But he didn't initially believe in the existence of singularities ... which astrophysicists say are lurking inside black holes. And as far as black holes are concerned, he said that all details of in-falling material should be wiped out so only the net mass, charge and angular momentum remain.

This is true and called the 'no hair' theorem. All BH with the same mass, charge, and spin are equal. In a way they are like elementary particles. I don't see how this is not believing in singularities. The existence or not of singularities is not relevant. What happens inside the horizon, by definition, cannot affect us, so there can be a singularity or pink elephants there, it just won't make any difference.

Also, not all singularities are naked. Naked singularities are the ones that are not surrounded by a horizon. Not believing in naked singularities is not the same as not believing in singularities.

But now astronomers use blackholes to explain the material seen flying out from galaxies and quasars.

Non sequitur, this has nothing to do with the no hair theorem. Why can't they use them to explain these things? BH have accretion disks, when matter is falling in it can emitjets of EM radiation.

And have had to alter the theories of magnetic fields to make that work ... in ways that contradict our understanding of magnetic fields for the past 100 years and which still haven't been demonstrated in the lab.

This is false, show me were they alter the theories of magnetic fields to make black holes work. They use GR + Maxwell's equations.

And by the way ... isn't it the contention of some Big Bang proponents that the whole universe came from a naked singularity at one point ... something Wheeler said was ... well ... impossible?

This is actually a good question and it has an answer. I don't have time to write it now, because it is a bit subtle, but in the meantime, here's a link to the sci.physics FAQ which explains it.

In any case, the existence of a singularity is not important to the Big Bang model (the worst feature of this model is its name, which was actually coined by detractors of the theory in its early days). We can't say what happened at t = 0. GR points to a singularity, some people find this unpleasant. Quantum theories hint that there was no singularity, but a 'rebound'. But this is not important: the Big Bang itself is the least important prediction of standard cosmology. The important thing is that the universe is expanding and that the visible universe was very small a long time ago. At t = 0 there could have been a singularity or something else, but this doesn't change what happened at t > 1 second, for example. As I said at the beginning of this thread, we do not claim to understand everything from t >= 0, just for some small t greater than zero.

 

[Invidious]

...snip...
This is actually a good question and it has an answer. I don't have time to write it now, because it is a bit subtle, but in the meantime, here's a link to the sci.physics FAQ which explains it.

In any case, the existence of a singularity is not important to the Big Bang model (the worst feature of this model is its name, which was actually coined by detractors of the theory in its early days). We can't say what happened at t = 0. GR points to a singularity, some people find this unpleasant. Quantum theories hint that there was no singularity, but a 'rebound'. But this is not important: the Big Bang itself is the least important prediction of standard cosmology. The important thing is that the universe is expanding and that the visible universe was very small a long time ago. At t = 0 there could have been a singularity or something else, but this doesn't change what happened at t > 1 second, for example. As I said at the beginning of this thread, we do not claim to understand everything from t >= 0, just for some small t greater than zero.

Hah! Typical non-answer from a Big-Bang Cosmologist Apologist!

Sorry.
Couldn't resist.

 

[JohnChasWebb]

"Big Bang"

Only an inherently violent species would conclude that the universe was created by an act of violence (e.g. "Big Bang").

How about a "Big La Dee Da" ..... ? It seems more 'user friendly'!

Latin "Bigus Bangus" means 'we don't have a clue'.

 

[Dancing David]

I prefer the Big Band myself, it is a rather useful metaphor. Such as "we can't know what was in the hall before the band began to play", or "we don't know if the score was written or improvised".

The Big bang is a misnomer since there would be no shockwave in an expanding space time, just the bubble of closed space time.

 

[Invidious]

"Big Bang"

Only an inherently violent species would conclude that the universe was created by an act of violence (e.g. "Big Bang").

How about a "Big La Dee Da" ..... ? It seems more 'user friendly'!

Latin "Bigus Bangus" means 'we don't have a clue'.

Please stop telling jokes. You're killing me.

 

[Slimething]

I'm not an astronomer or a physicist so I can't really add much to this discussion. Sad, cuz I find it fascinating. I am enjoying all the purdy pitchers though.

BAC, could you explain to me why the quasar has to be in front or inside the pinwheel galaxy? I can't understand how this was established. Also, if this thing is that unique and unusual, why is it being called a quasar and not being considered something that somehow gives a faux redshift reading?

 

[Puppycow]

I'm not an astronomer or a physicist so I can't really add much to this discussion. Sad, cuz I find it fascinating. I am enjoying all the purdy pitchers though.

BAC, could you explain to me why the quasar has to be in front or inside the pinwheel galaxy? I can't understand how this was established. Also, if this thing is that unique and unusual, why is it being called a quasar and not being considered something that somehow gives a faux redshift reading?

I clicked on the link but nothing came up. My answer is that it does not. There's lots of space between stars in a galaxy, so objects behind the galaxy could show through if they are bright enough. I am not aware of any accepted theory for a 'faux redshift'. My understanding is that redshifts occur due to the doppler effect of objects moving away from us or by expansion of the universe. The light from the most distant objects has been traveling through space for billions of years while the spacetime it travels through is expanding. This stretches the wavelength.

 

[BeAChooser]

I've read your response to my "challenge", BeAChooser, and at no point did you actually do what I asked.

That's not true, Frank. You wrote: "please use plasma cosmology to explain the following observations". You said "You MUST compare directly to observations." And I did. And I also pointed out how wrong Big Bang is in explaining observations in many areas. Which you just ignored. Don't think lurkers didn't notice.

So, out of politeness, I will repeat it. Please PROVIDE PREDICTED VALUES for the following:

So now you want to change the playing field and demand what Plasma Cosmology "predicted" for those things? Ok. Of course, I will also look at how well Big Bang astrophysicists did in predicting those things. I don't think you're going to like the result.

-the age of the universe (at least older than the solar system!)

Well, given that I already stated that Plasma Cosmology does not predict an age for the universe (just that it's old enough for the structures we see to form), I'm not sure what you are asking.

But it is interesting to again note that in order to make the age Big Bang cosmology says the universe has been around longer than the age Big Bang astrophysicists say certain types of stars have been around, they've had to introduce this notion of Dark Energy (an invisible, undetectable *energy* with bizarre characteristics that they say accounts for 76% of the universe). 76%. No minor fudge. And you just ignore that, Frank.

It is interesting to note that in my posts on this thread, I've quoted a mainstream astronomer who recently said that his team found a large structure (string of galaxies) in the distant universe that would have taken so long to form that Big Bang proponents are going to have to go back to the drawing board and reexamine their theories of the formation of the universe. And you just ignore that, too.

And you also ignored my pointing out that 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. So we find yet another clue that the age predicted by Big Bang for the universe is wrong.

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

Big Bang proponents claim the Big Bang theory predicted the abundance of hydrogen, helium and lithium. But did they?

Big bang predictions of the ratio of helium to hydrogen have been repeatedly adjusted to agree with the latest available estimates of the observed ratio. Is that what you mean by "prediction"?

Eric Lerner in http://bigbangneverhappened.org/ states "Big Bang Nucleosynthesis (BBN) predicts the abundance of four light isotopes(4He, 3He, D and 7Li) given only the density of baryons in the universe. These predictions are central to the theory, since they flow from the hypothesis that the universe went through a period of high temperature and density--the Big Bang. In practice, the baryon density has been treated as a free variable, adjusted to match the observed abundances. Since four abundances must be matched with only a single free variable, the light element abundances are a clear-cut test of the theory. In 1992, there was no value for the baryon density that could give an acceptable agreement with observed abundances, and this situation has only worsened in the ensuing decade."

Lerner goes on to give considerable detail as to why the above is true, summing up his discussion thus: "Even ignoring 3He, the current observations of just three of the four predicted BBN light elements preclude BBN at a level of at least 7 s. In other words, the odds against BBN being a correct theory are about 100 billion to one. It is important to emphasize that BBN is an integral part of the Big Bang theory. Its predictions flow from the basic assumption of the Big Bang, a hot dense origin for the universe. If BBN is rejected, the Big Bang theory must also be rejected. Recently, Big Bang theorists have interpreted precision measurement of the anisotropy of the CBR as providing a direct measurement of the baryon density of the universe[15].(The CBR will be examined in more detail in section IV). These calculations imply h=6.14+-0.25 x10-10, a D abundance of 2.74+-0.2x10-5, a 7Li abundance of 3.76+1.03-0.38x10-10 and a 4He abundance of 24.84+-.04 %. While much has been made by Big Bang advocates of the agreement with D observations, overall this makes matters still worse for the validity of BBN, for the 7Li value alone is now excluded at a 7 s level, and the 4He is excluded at a 2 s level even for the highest estimate and at between a 4 s and 12 s level for the other estimates. Very conservatively, this increases the odds against BBN, and therefore against the Big Bang itself, being a valid theory to above 2 x10-14 to one."

You wanted numbers. You got numbers.

Now here's what Lerner say about Plasma Cosmology:

*************

"In contrast to the extremely bad performance of BBN, the predictions of the plasma alternative have held up remarkably well. Plasma filamentation theory allows the prediction of the mass of condensed objects formed as a function of density. This leads to predictions of the formation of large numbers of intermediate mass stars during the formations of galaxies[8-10]. These stars produce and emit to the environment large amounts of 4He, but very little C, N and O. In addition cosmic rays from these stars can produce by collisions with ambient H and He the observed amounts of D and 7Li.

The plasma calculations, which contained no free variables, lead to a broader range of predicted abundances than does BBN, because the plasma theory hypothesizes a process occurring in individual galaxies, so some variation is to be expected. The range of values predicted for 4He is from 21.5 to 24.8 %. However, the theory is still tested by the observations, since the minimum predicted value remains a firm lower limit (additional 4He is of course produced in more mature galaxies). This minimum value is completely consistent with the minimum observed values of 4He abundance, such as UM461 with an abundance of 21.9+-0.8 .

Further confirmation of these 16-year old predictions is in the widely noted observations that no galaxies, indeed no stars, have been observed that are entirely free of heavier elements, which is in accord with the predictions of the plasma-based stellar production of light elements.

Deuterium production by the p+p->d+p reaction has been predicted by plasma theory to yield abundances of the order of 2.2x10-5[8]. While more precise calculations will have to be done to improve this figure and to define the range of values that are likely, it is notable that this prediction was made in 1989, at a time when no observations of high redshift D was available and the consensus values for primordial D from Big Bang theory were 3-4 times higher. Yet this predicted value lies within the range of observed high-z D values, although somewhat below the average D values.

In its present form, the plasma-stellar theory of light elements does not give a prediction for the absolute abundance of 7Li. The observed low and variable abundances of cosmic -ray spallation products of C, N, and O, which are 9Be and 11B in old stars, indicates that 7Li was probably formed by He-He fusion in the interstellar medium, but more modeling will be needed to develop concrete predictions.

The most dramatic confirmation of the predictions of the plasma-stellar model is in the discovery of large number of white dwarfs in the halo of the Milky Way. Since the theory predicts the formation of an initial population of intermediate-mass stars, it is a straightforward deduction that these stars must leave behind white dwarfs that should exist at present. Specifically the theory predicts that somewhat less than half the total mass of the galaxy should exist in the form of collapsed cores-either white dwarfs or neutron stars[27], and for the intermediate stars, which are too small to become supernovae, the normal end-point would be white dwarfs.

Recent observations of high proper motion stars have shown that halo white dwarfs constitute a mass of about 1011 solar masses, comparable to about half the total estimated mass of the Galaxy[28-29]. While these observations have been sharply criticized, they have been confirmed by new observations[30]. Not only are the existence of these numerous white dwarfs confirmation of much earlier predictions by the plasma theory, they create new and insurmountable problems for BBN. Even if the progenitor stars were only 2-3M, a mass of He equal to about 10-15% of the mass of the remnant white dwarfs would be released into the ISM. This would account for at minimum 50% of the observed He abundance, reducing the possible contribution from the Big Bang to less than 12% of the total mass. Such a low production of 4He is impossible with BBN for a baryon/photon ratio even as low as 1x10-10. Thus the plasma model has successful predicted a new phenomenon, while the BBN model has been decisively contradicted by observation."

*************

Oh oh ... you asked for numbers and you got numbers.

-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

I notice you just ignored the lastest WMAP observation suggesting that the CMB might not be coming from behind galaxy clusters.

But let's look at the predictions Big Bang made for the CMB temperature anyway. Those predictions varied over a range of 5 to 50 K. Some Big Bang cosmologists adjusted their "predictions" to agree with observed temperatures. The prediction of 5 K, which was touted as agreement with the observed temperature, was made by scientists who had accepted a Big Bang cosmology that included concepts that were incorrect. And some scientists had noted that the temperature of radiation from space might reasonably be expected to be some small number of degrees above absolute zero anyway. In fact, some estimated temperatures in the range of 2 to 3 K; closer to that of the measured temperature than was estimated by Big Bang cosmologists, well before Big Bang cosmologists even existed.

http://www.plasmacosmology.net/bb.html "Big Bang supporters are fond of claiming CMB radiation as conclusive evidence for their theory, but these claims begin to look somewhat revisionist in the light of the following facts. The background temperature of space was predicted by Guillaume, Eddington, Regener, Nernst, Herzberg, Finlay-Freundlich and Max Born, based on a universe without expansion, and prior to the discovery of the CMB. Their predictions were far more accurate than models based on the Big Bang."

You might want to read this: http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache...ckground+temperature&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=us "History of the 2.7 K Temperature Prior to Penzias and Wilson ... snip ... Our conclusion is that the discovery of the CBR by Penzias and Wilson is a decisive factor in favour of a Universe in dynamical equilibrium, and against models of an expanding Universe, such as the Big Bang and the steady-state."

Oh oh ...

-the flatness of spatial curvature

Around 2000, several experiments found the universe to be almost geometrically flat. Like I said, plasma cosmology doesn't have a problem with the flatness of spatial curvature. Never did. And Big Bang theorists only get a flat universe by inventing a very special and unique event, inflation, that can only be described as magic that now they are trying to explain by invoking yet another invisible, untestable, bizarre mathematical construct ... string theory. Oh yeah ... Big Bang cosmologists have this problem solved.

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

Yeah ... you keep asking questions about that. I'll keep noting Big Bang scientists believe in dark energy because they don't know what those terms really mean and that such terms depend on a host of assumptions (like all redshifts are proportional to distance and haloing is real) that don't appear to be correct when observed data is looked at by plasma cosmologists.

-the luminosity-distance relations of type 1a supernova

I think I see what you are getting at, here. The distance relations here might be real since they don't depend on redshift. Can Plasma cosmology handle the possibility that regions of the universe are expanding away from some point? Sure.

It's even explained in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_cosmology "In 1971, Klein would extend Alfvén's proposals and develop the "Alfvén-Klein model" of cosmology. Their cosmology relied on giant astrophysical explosions resulting from a hypothetical mixing of cosmic matter and antimatter that created the universe or meta-galaxy as they preferred to speculate (see the Shapley-Curtis debate for more on the history of distinguishing between the universe and the Milky Way galaxy). This hypothetical substance that spawned the universe was termed "ambiplasma" and took the forms of proton-antiprotons (heavy ambiplasma) and electrons-positrons (light ambiplasma). In Alfvén's cosmology, the universe contained heavy symmetric ambiplasma with protective light ambiplasma, separated by double layers. According to Alfvén, such an ambiplasma would be relatively long-lived as the component particles and antiparticles would be too hot and too low-density to annihilate with each other rapidly. Annihilation radiation would emanate from the double layers of plasma and antiplasma domains. The exploding double layer was also suggested by Alfvén as a possible mechanism for the generation of cosmic rays[citation needed], x-ray bursts and gamma-ray bursts.[11] Ambiplasma was proposed in part to explain the observed baryon asymmetry in the universe as being due to an initial condition of exact symmetry between matter and antimatter.[12] According to Alfvén and Klein, ambiplasma would naturally form pockets of matter and pockets of antimatter that would expand outwards as annihilation between matter and antimatter occurred at the boundaries. Therefore, they concluded that we must happen to live in one of the pockets that was mostly baryons rather than antibaryons. The processes governing the evolution and characteristics of the universe at its largest scale would be governed mostly by this feature. Alfvén postulated that the universe has always existed[13] due to causality arguments and rejection of ex nihilo models as a stealth form of creationism.[14] The cellular regions of exclusively matter or antimatter would appear to expand in regions local to annihilation, which Alfvén considered as a possible explanation for the observed apparent expansion of the universe as merely a local phase of a much larger history."

Here's the index of Alfven's book: http://www.plasma-universe.com/index.php/Cosmic_Plasma_(Boo) "Cosmic Plasma by Hannes Alfvén. Publ. 1981."

And a further description: http://www.experiencefestival.com/a/Plasma_cosmology_-_Alfvns_model/id/5380663 "As theoretical considerations and experimental evidence from particle physics showed that matter and antimatter always come into existence in equal quantities, Alfvén and Klein in the early 1960s developed a theory of cosmological evolution based on the development of an "ambiplasma" consisting of equal quantities of matter and antimatter. Alfvén theorized that if an ambiplasma was affected by both gravitational and magnetic fields, as could be expected in large-scale regions of space, matter and antimatter would naturally separate from each other. When small matter clouds collided with small antimatter clouds, the annihilation reactions on their border would cause them to repel each other, but matter clouds colliding with matter clouds would merge, leading to increasingly large regions of the universe consisting of almost exclusively matter or antimatter. Eventually the regions would become so vast that the gamma rays produced by annihilation reactions at their borders would be almost unobservable. This explanation of the dominance of matter in the local universe contrasts sharply with that proposed by big bang cosmology, which requires a asymmetric production of matter and antimatter at high energy. (If matter and antimatter had been produced in equal quantities in the extremely dense big bang, annihilation would have reduced the universal density to only a few trillionths of that observed.) Such asymmetric matter-antimatter production has never been observed in nature. Alfvén and Klein then went on to use their ambiplasma theory to explain the Hubble relation between redshift and distance. They hypothesized that a very large region of the universe, consisting of parts alternately containing matter and antimatter, gravitationally collapsed until the matter and antimatter regions were forced together, liberating huge amounts of energy and leading to an explosion. At no point in this model, however, does the density of our part of the universe become very high. This explanation was appealing, because if we were at the center of the explosion we would observe the Doppler shifts from receding particles as redshifts, and the most distant particles would be the fastest moving, and hence have the largest redshift. This explanation of the Hubble relationship did not withstand analysis, however. Carlqvist determined that there was no way that such a mechanism could lead to the very high redshifts, comparable to or greater than unity, that were observed. Moreover, it was difficult to see how the high degree of isotropy of the visible universe could be reproduced in this model. While Alfven’s separation process was sound, it seems almost impossible for the process to reverse and lead to a re-mixing of matter and antimatter."

Let me point out that images like this

which I've discussed previously might challenge the assertion made above that Alfven/Klein's model doesn't work (because it's claimed there is no way the mechanism proposed could produce the very high redshifts observed). BUT most such redshifts are associated with quasars ... which that image proves can't be at the great distance the Big Bang proponents claim. And the other objects with high redshifts tend to get AGNs, which also may have a mechanism producing redshifted light. So maybe Alfven/Klein's model isn't falsified by observations after all?

And here are some other interesting items related to this topic:

http://www.springerlink.com/content/n216463814t475x5/ " A matter-antimatter separation mechanism"

http://www.springerlink.com/content/m3340j418xqn8071/ "Size of ambiplasma domains in the Universe"

http://www.springerlink.com/content/m630681632782587/ " Equations for a plasma consisting of matter and antimatter"

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1987STIN...8814053A "
Cosmology in the plasma universe, Authors: Alfven,*Hannes ... snip ... Publication Date: 05/1987 ... snip ... Criteria a cosmological theory must satisfy in order to be acceptable in the plasma Universe are considered. Matter-antimatter symmetry, and Klein's cosmological model are discussed. Prophetic and actualistic approaches to adopting Big Bang cosmology to the plasma Universe are assessed. Traditional Big Bang theory leads to difficulties due to the prophetic nature of its predictions. Actualistic approaches, extrapolating backwards from present conditions lead to increasing uncertainty the further they go. It is stressed, however that the Hubble expansion was caused by annihilation in a large region (1 billion light years) called Bigger Big Bang."

http://cossc.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/cgro/epo/news/antimatter.html "ANTIMATTER CLOUDS AND FOUNTAIN DISCOVERED IN THE MILKY WAY, Scientists using data from an instrument on NASA Compton Gamma Ray Observatory (CGRO) have discovered two unexpected clouds of antimatter in the Milky Way Galaxy which scientists call antimatter annihilation radiation."

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2003/0903rhessi.html "ANTIMATTER FACTORY ON SUN YIELDS CLUES TO SOLAR EXPLOSIONS"

http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Where_Has_All_The_Antimatter_Gone_999.html "Where Has All The Antimatter Gone, Apr 12, 2007 ... snip ... Matter and antimatter were created in equal amounts in the Big Bang but somehow the antimatter disappeared resulting in the Universe, and everything in it, including ourselves, being made of the remaining matter."

Somehow? It's hard not to laugh at all the handwaving the Big Bang proponents are doing. Oh what the heck ... ROTFLOL!

Say, Frank ... do you have an explanation for where the antimatter went? One that those who aren't in the priesthood could understand?

If I were to go out and measure the spatial curvature of the universe, what does plasma cosmology predict to be the answer?

Just what it is ... without the need for inflation or any other wacky, unexplainable nonsense. Now it's your turn, Frank ... tell our readers how many different models of inflation the Big Bang priesthood has dreamed up over the years ... because one magical gnome was not enough to fit the data ...

If I go looking for CMB anisotropies, at what multipole should I find the largest peak?

If I look for spectral index of CMB fluctuations, what does plasma cosmology say I will find?

So Frank ... the latest observational data from astronomers (that I cited earlier) suggests the CMB is not coming from behind galactic clusters like you and the Big Bang assume. You have an explanation? Because if you don't have one, I'd have to say your numbers mean next to nothing.

If I go looking at the distribution of matter in the universe, what are the RMS fluctuations in 8 Mpc spheres?

This question is truly hilarious when TV's Frank's experts are basing their numbers on a claim that 20% of the matter in the universe is invisible, non-interacting (except for gravity) and undetermined (because they can't seem to find it despite 30 years and thousands of mega-dollars trying). Just so everyone knows, their model assumes the existence of 5 TIMES more matter than ordinary matter (you know, the stuff that obeys physics as we know it here on earth). Which came first, Frank? The observations or that dark matter (and let's not forget the 76% dark energy) fudge factor you threw into your model?

You should get the idea. The above 4 questions have answers, from observations, that are simple numbers. There are very basic, fundamental aspects of our universe. So, from plasma cosmology, what should these numbers be? Feel free to give estimates and uncertainties with your answer, but try to be precise. That's all I want. 4 numbers. That's all your post has to be. That's all. If you can't limit your post to 4 numbers and associated discussion, then I will not read it.

Got him on the run, don't I folks.

ROTFLOL! I recommend readers try to make heads or tails of this: http://www.valdostamuseum.org/hamsmith/cosconsensus.html It's probably where Frank gets all *his* numbers. And if its any guide, he has lots more where those 4 came from. And it took a lot of money and time to develope them. But in the meantime, as I've demonstrated, he can't even tell us why a high redshifted quasar would be in front of a low redshifted galaxy. And that's just one example I've noted. To put it simply, Frank can't see the forest through his numbers.

Now I wonder if TV'sFrank will from the rest of things that are wrong with Big Bang. It's growing into quite a list:

http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache...t+element+abundance&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=13&gl=us "The Top 30 Problems with the Big Bang, April 2002"

ROTFLOL!

 

[BeAChooser]

For those how are interested, here's Hannes Alfven's article describing his plasma cosmology (including the ambiplasma portion):

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1983Ap&SS..89..313A

Just use the "Send PDF" button about midway down on the page to get it.

 

[BeAChooser]

I just wanted to point out that the inability of a theory to explain something is not an argument against that theory

I'll remember to tell TV's Frank that next time he demands I supply explainations for all his numbers.

But seriously, when observational data is in direct contradiction to the theory or the major assumption on which the theory is based, then that is an argument against the theory, unless it can be modified to work. But the modification shouldn't invoke magic and non-falsifiable objects, forces, interactions and events to fit the data. Not if it want's to be called science.

So far, I have yet to see you present any actual explanations.

And you call Dark Matter, Dark Energy and Inflation an explanation?

Frankly, I'm not qualified to provide more than rudimentary explanations for what the plasma cosmologists (and these are prize winning scientists with degrees in electrical and plasma physics) describe. I've pointed you folks to many sources and papers where you can get a better picture. If you won't look at them, I can't help that. If you want to know the detailed explanations, I suggest you go get Alfven's book on Plasma Cosmology. I'm sure he describes the physics and computers models he used to study the creation and behavior of galaxies in great detail. I suggest you start with a book like Donald Scott's. It's at a technical level most people should be able to understand if they try and very conscisely shows the scope of the problems with Big Bang and how Plasma Cosmologists are answering those problems. The latest in Plasma Cosmology is fascinating but not something you will find covered by the mainstream media or even in a book at your local bookstore. But that doesn't mean it's wrong.

By the way ... do you have an explanation for what is seen in the photo of NGC 7319? I'm still waiting for *someone* to offer one and salvage BB.

 

[TV's Frank]

I'm sorry, BeAChooser, but I'm having difficulty finding the four numbers I asked for. Could you please do me a favor and just repost the 4 numbers, alone, without commentary?

Cheers,
TV's Frank