Another Problem With Big Bang?

[ynot]

No worries! It is entirely my fault that I am not explaining this well enough. The term "cosmological redshift" applies ONLY to the streching of light as it travels through expanding space.

Cheers,
TV's Frank

Thanks - But as expanding space moves objects apart, it also causes Doppler shift? So when we view distant stars we must consider Doppler shift caused by both space expansion and perculiar velocity?

 

[BeAChooser]

Quote:
You claim that the Debye length is the critical parameter and rules out the possibility of structures across intergalactic space where the distance between galaxies is in the millions of light years?

No, that's a strawman.

Pardon me if I misunderstood. It just seemed that you were arguing that large scale structures in space could not be explained as plasma/electromagnetically created because of the Debye length. I think I proved that wrong, even if that isn't what you were trying to claim.

You said that there is a lot of plasma

No, astrophysicists, when they can find the time to mention it, say there is a lot of plasma ... in fact, they say almost all of what we can actually see is plasma.

so the cosmology must be dominated by plasma

Well it is, by definition, if 99% of the provable universe is plasma.

I didn't offer the concept of Debye length as a proof that such structures are impossible, just as a way of forcing you to give better evidence for your claims.

Fine, then it worked.

I know several plasma physicists, somehow I don't think they don't believe in nuclear fusion as a source of energy for the stars.

Are any of them even aware of Ralph Juergens and his model, and how well it seems to explain things that are still a mystery to mainstream astronomers?

Well, if you don't believe in relativity at all,

That is a strawman since what I said is I make no claim either way and that subject is not relevant to this thread.

Quote:
But study of electromagnetism is old (compared to that of say Dark Matter and Dark Energy *physics*) and it is good

Yes, but it is not good because it is old

On the contrary ... it is good because it has stood the test of time during a period of intense scientific scrutiny. It forms the basis of our technical civilization and known laws of plasma and electromagnetism are used in countless applications within that civilization. Dark Matter and Dark Energy *physics* can make no such claim.

 

[BeAChooser]

Being not too expert on the topic, I am not doing so hot a job at getting it across.

Maybe it's not really your fault, DR.

Maybe the problem lies in the nature of the theory (see the thread's subject article).

Or maybe the problem lies in the evidence for it.

I think dark matter isn't an intuitive concept for most laymen.

I doubt it is all that intuitive to even those *in the know* given that now they have hot dark matte, cold dark matter, cold collisionless dark matter, strongly self-interacting dark matter, warm dark matter, repulsive dark matter, self annihilating dark matter, fuzzy dark matter and probably a few other categories by now. In fact, according the article at the beginning of this thread, dark matter (not sure which one of the above) may need to interact with other dark matter by an "as-yet-unknown" interaction. It's just a non-intuitive mess. And if you think Dark Matter is hard to explain, try Dark Energy.

Here's a thought to ponder. In any number of fields, the initial research is less than productive, or is only modestly productive, until a breakthrough is achieved.

So you think we just need to be patient? For another 30 years?

But name another field beside Big Bang cosmology and astrophysics where deductive method is so overwhelmingly dominant in proving theories? Maybe the lack of success these last 30 years is a symptom that the very first assumptions were wrong. Maybe it is time, after thirty years, to step back and reexamine those assumptions and look at viable alternative theories that up till now have been mostly ignored?

which is what your suggestion is regarding the false dilemma between researching more on dark matter OR more in plasma cosmology.

Frankly, I'd be satisfied if the powers that be would spend a TENTH the amount they spend trying to prove Big Bang FAIRIE DUST and Dark Energy on Plasma Cosmology. I'd be absolutely giddy if they spent a THIRD the amount. I'd be ecstatic if they spent the same amount.

I too am interested in the four numbers asked for, as a point of comparison to what Frank has raised.

I'll make the same response to you that I made to Frank, that he simply ignored.

***********

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 here was my challenge to 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?

As I responded to Frank, the latest observational data from astronomers suggests the CMB is not coming from behind galactic clusters like he and the Big Bang assume. Here was the source I cited to back that up:

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." And there was 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."

As I said to Frank, 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. That's why I told Frank that if he didn't have an explanation for the above observation, his numbers might 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?

As I told Frank, this question is truly hilarious when his 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). The model he supports assumes 5 TIMES more matter than ordinary matter (the stuff that obeys physics as we know it here on earth).

Because it is almost laughable to think a quantity based on such assumptions can be right, I asked him in return, which came first? The observations or the dark matter? And I'll add now, that if quasars are shown to not be distant objects, how will that affect the estimate for Dark Matter and Dark Energy, and the resulting numbers he's asking for above?

***********

 

[BeAChooser]

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
They say the core (what's behind the quasar) of this type of galaxy is very dense and filled with opaque clouds so that no light from a distant quasar could get through.

Couldn't "they" be wrong about this, though?

Sure. But the probability that they are wrong, given what we know about galaxies of this type, is very low. Plus, they've also shown that the characteristics of the light from the quasar is consistent with not having gone through the dust of the galaxy.

when I first read up on distance measurements, the textbooks said it was done by paralax measurements.

Not in this case. Parallax won't work because these objects are too far away. What Hubble did is use the luminosity of certain types of stars found in a large number of distant galaxies to determine their distance. He then established a relationship between those distances and the redshift of those galaxies. And that relationship figures prominently in support of the Big Bang theory. And that relationship is what is being used to say that quasar should be 93 times farther away than the galaxy that observations seem to suggest is behind it. See the problem?

Could it be possible that this is not a quasar but some even more esoteric body not previously encoutnered?

So we invent yet another "esoteric body not previously encountered" to explain away an observation that counters the theory the Big Bang community holds dear? When do we finally wake up to the pitfalls of this deductive approach to physics? Thirty years from now (being patient)?

 

[TV's Frank]

Thanks - But as expanding space moves objects apart, it also causes Doppler shift? So when we view distant stars we must consider Doppler shift caused by both space expansion and perculiar velocity?

Not quite. As space expands and moves objects apart, that does NOT cause a Doppler shift. That's because the expansion of space doesn't actually make objects "move", only the space between objects get bigger, you dig? Sorry if I got fast and loose with my words -- it's easy to visualize the galaxies "flying" away from each other, but this isn't quite accurate.

To summarize:

Expansion of space -> cosmological redshift and no Doppler shift.
Peculiar velocity -> Doppler shift.

Hope this clears it up!

Cheers,
TV's Frank

 

[TV's Frank]

...snip....

I'll make the same response to you that I made to Frank, that he simply ignored.

...snip...

I'm sorry, BeAChooser. Yes, you did "respond" to my request, but you did not actually answer my questions. I asked for 4 numbers based on predictions from plasma cosmology for basic observations of our universe. I re-read your response, but could not find 4 numbers anywhere.

For example: I am aware the plasma cosmologists (or, at least, you) claim a different source for the CMB. That is nice. Based on what you claim is the source of the CMB, you can still figure things out like anisotropies and a power spectrum. I'm sure somewhere in the 40+ years of plasma cosmology somebody has performed this task. Folks have managed to do this for every other competing cosmological model, because they are eager to compare it to observations and win a free trip to Stockholm. Once you provide the number, we can compare to observations and test the theory.

So, BeAChooser, please provide the 4 numbers I asked for. I would very much like to test this theory against these basic observations.

Cheers,
TV's Frank

 

[ynot]

Not quite. As space expands and moves objects apart, that does NOT cause a Doppler shift. That's because the expansion of space doesn't actually make objects "move", only the space between objects get bigger, you dig? Sorry if I got fast and loose with my words -- it's easy to visualize the galaxies "flying" away from each other, but this isn't quite accurate.

To summarize:

Expansion of space -> cosmological redshift and no Doppler shift.
Peculiar velocity -> Doppler shift.

Hope this clears it up!

Cheers,
TV's Frank

Not only do I not “dig” but I can’t make any sense out of what you have said.

Can you please explain (non-math) how “space expands and moves objects apart” but “the expansion of space doesn't actually make objects "move”.” (don’t know why the quotes).

 

[fishkr]

Imagine you are in a house where the walls, floors, the air within it, the contained objects including you, are all growing at exactly the same rate.
You are getting bigger, the house is getting bigger, but the relationships between the objects is the same.

Instead of thinking about space expanding as things "flying away from each other", think about the house itself expanding and taking all of the contents with it into a bigger space at the same rate of expansion.

 

[TV's Frank]

Not only do I not “dig” but I can’t make any sense out of what you have said.

Can you please explain (non-math) how “space expands and moves objects apart” but “the expansion of space doesn't actually make objects "move”.” (don’t know why the quotes).

Okay, ynot, fair enough. I goofed a little. Before I explain my goof, let's start from the beginning, just to be sure. This time, I'm going to pull out all the stops. This is my last card to play, the final showstopper, the ultimate answer, the explanation to end all explanations.

It's time...for the over-extended analogy (pun intended)...

Let's start with a simple universe: you, me, and a rubber sheet. We each stand on an end of the rubber sheet. We each take out a big marker, and mark a big ol' "X" right under our feet.

Let's examine the difference between peculiar motion and space expansion...

Case #1: Peculiar motion. Startled, you take off running away. After awhile, you stop. I call out to you: "Ynot, have you moved?". You respond, "Yes, Frank, I have. The big X-mark is no longer under my feet. I have very clearly moved!" While you were running away, I recorded your image. Indeed, I noticed you had a redshift, and it matched my calculation of a Doppler effect. Thus, your motion caused a Doppler shift. You knew that you had moved, because you no longer were on top of the big X-mark.


Case #2: space expansion. Our devious friends pull on the ends of the rubber sheet, without us knowing. Jerks. Both of us notice that the other is getting smaller and smaller and getting farther and farther away. Worried, you call out to me, "Frank! You are getting farther away! Are you moving???" I reply: "Sorry, ynot, but I am not! The big X-mark remains solidly under my feet. So, I am not moving! What about you?". "The same for me, I'm afraid," you respond, "my big X-mark is right there, all big and X-ey. I can confidently say that I am not moving!"

So what gives? We are getting farther away, but each of us is reporting that we are not moving! Indeed, as we examine the light from each other, we notice a redshift, but that redshift does not agree with calculations from a Doppler effect. So the expansion of space does not make us move!

The expansion of space makes us farther away from each other, not by making us move, but by making more space between us. The light, on its way from you and me, was redshifted not from Doppler effects, but because as it was traveling along, space got more stretched out, which made the photon itself stretch out...a cosmological redshift!

So the lesson is this: the expansion of space creates the illusion of motion; the illusion that galaxies are "flying" away from each other. But the galaxies are not moving, there is just more space between them. This is why I put "move" in quotes earlier: because it looks like the galaxies are moving, but it's really just space expanding. The expansion of space does not "push" galaxies away from each other...there is just more space between the galaxies. The galaxies are farther away from each other, just like you and me were farther away. But not because they moved (they still see a big X under their feet), but because there is more space!


There! That's the best I can come up with! I think I know what you're struggling with, and it's the following statement I put: "space expands and moves objects apart". That was very sloppy on my part, and I am very sorry. I'm a sloppy guy! It should read: "space expands and objects are farther apart". With cosmological expansion, there is no "pushing" or "pulling" or "moving" or "flying"...there is just more space.

I really hope this did the trick! If not, my apologies.

Cheers,
TV's Frank

 

[ynot]

Imagine you are in a house where the walls, floors, the air within it, the contained objects including you, are all growing at exactly the same rate.
You are getting bigger, the house is getting bigger, but the relationships between the objects is the same.

Instead of thinking about space expanding as things "flying away from each other", think about the house itself expanding and taking all of the contents with it into a bigger space at the same rate of expansion.

I guess you’re answering my question (thanks). If everything was universally expanding, then essentially nothing would be expanding as size (like motion) is relative. At least there would be no way of knowing things were expanding (or contracting for that matter). But space expanding is not material objects expanding (not universal expansion). To borrow someone’s analogy, the dough of cooking raisin bread expands, and the raisin uniformly move apart, but the raisins don’t expand.
Are you saying that saying galaxies and everything are universally expanding?

 

[ynot]

Okay, ynot, fair enough. I goofed a little. Before I explain my goof, let's start from the beginning, just to be sure. This time, I'm going to pull out all the stops. This is my last card to play, the final showstopper, the ultimate answer, the explanation to end all explanations.

It's time...for the over-extended analogy (pun intended)...

Let's start with a simple universe: you, me, and a rubber sheet. We each stand on an end of the rubber sheet. We each take out a big marker, and mark a big ol' "X" right under our feet.

Let's examine the difference between peculiar motion and space expansion...

Case #1: Peculiar motion. Startled, you take off running away. After awhile, you stop. I call out to you: "Ynot, have you moved?". You respond, "Yes, Frank, I have. The big X-mark is no longer under my feet. I have very clearly moved!" While you were running away, I recorded your image. Indeed, I noticed you had a redshift, and it matched my calculation of a Doppler effect. Thus, your motion caused a Doppler shift. You knew that you had moved, because you no longer were on top of the big X-mark.


Case #2: space expansion. Our devious friends pull on the ends of the rubber sheet, without us knowing. Jerks. Both of us notice that the other is getting smaller and smaller and getting farther and farther away. Worried, you call out to me, "Frank! You are getting farther away! Are you moving???" I reply: "Sorry, ynot, but I am not! The big X-mark remains solidly under my feet. So, I am not moving! What about you?". "The same for me, I'm afraid," you respond, "my big X-mark is right there, all big and X-ey. I can confidently say that I am not moving!"

So what gives? We are getting farther away, but each of us is reporting that we are not moving! Indeed, as we examine the light from each other, we notice a redshift, but that redshift does not agree with calculations from a Doppler effect. So the expansion of space does not make us move!

The expansion of space makes us farther away from each other, not by making us move, but by making more space between us. The light, on its way from you and me, was redshifted not from Doppler effects, but because as it was traveling along, space got more stretched out, which made the photon itself stretch out...a cosmological redshift!

So the lesson is this: the expansion of space creates the illusion of motion; the illusion that galaxies are "flying" away from each other. But the galaxies are not moving, there is just more space between them. This is why I put "move" in quotes earlier: because it looks like the galaxies are moving, but it's really just space expanding. The expansion of space does not "push" galaxies away from each other...there is just more space between the galaxies. The galaxies are farther away from each other, just like you and me were farther away. But not because they moved (they still see a big X under their feet), but because there is more space!


There! That's the best I can come up with! I think I know what you're struggling with, and it's the following statement I put: "space expands and moves objects apart". That was very sloppy on my part, and I am very sorry. I'm a sloppy guy! It should read: "space expands and objects are farther apart". With cosmological expansion, there is no "pushing" or "pulling" or "moving" or "flying"...there is just more space.

I really hope this did the trick! If not, my apologies.

Cheers,
TV's Frank

As I walked upon a stair
I saw a man that wasn’t there.
He wasn’t there again today
I wish that man would go away.

Sorry, but your explanation makes no more sense to me than this nonsense poem.

Before declaring “woo” however, I will try to understand what you mean and get back.

No need to apologise. I appreciate your effort.

 

[SirPhilip]

Loaded, perhaps irrelevant, but curious question: if dark matter with it's strange interaction with known matter is ubiquitous - what would it's influence suggest on biological systems?

 

[TV's Frank]

Loaded, perhaps irrelevant, but curious question: if dark matter with it's strange interaction with known matter is ubiquitous - what would it's influence suggest on biological systems?

We suspect that dark matter particles interact with "ordinary" matter in only two ways: through gravity and through the "weak interaction" (one of 4 known fundamental forces of nature). Like the name suggests, this is incredibly weak, and since the suspected dark matter particles are so light, these interactions occur very very very very very very very rarely. In fact, there are probably several billion dark matter particles streaming through your body every second. If this seems crazy, at least they have company: another small particle, the neutrino, is generated in fusion reactions in the sun. This is another particle that interacts only through gravity and the weak interaction. If you were to hold your thumb up to the sun, then every single second, there are around 6 BILLION neutrinos passing through your thumbnail!! We need gigantic tanks of water buried in the earth just to catch a neutrino even once in a rare while.

Right now, there are detectors operating hoping to catch a rare event with a passing dark matter particle.

I'm too lazy to calculate the odds right now, but the chance of a single dark matter particle interacting with you or any other biological system is...essentially 0. The effect of an interaction would be...essentially nothing important.

 

[ynot]

Okay, ynot, fair enough. I goofed a little. Before I explain my goof, let's start from the beginning, just to be sure. This time, I'm going to pull out all the stops. This is my last card to play, the final showstopper, the ultimate answer, the explanation to end all explanations.

It's time...for the over-extended analogy (pun intended)...

Let's start with a simple universe: you, me, and a rubber sheet. We each stand on an end of the rubber sheet. We each take out a big marker, and mark a big ol' "X" right under our feet.

Let's examine the difference between peculiar motion and space expansion...

Case #1: Peculiar motion. Startled, you take off running away. After awhile, you stop. I call out to you: "Ynot, have you moved?". You respond, "Yes, Frank, I have. The big X-mark is no longer under my feet. I have very clearly moved!" While you were running away, I recorded your image. Indeed, I noticed you had a redshift, and it matched my calculation of a Doppler effect. Thus, your motion caused a Doppler shift. You knew that you had moved, because you no longer were on top of the big X-mark.


Case #2: space expansion. Our devious friends pull on the ends of the rubber sheet, without us knowing. Jerks. Both of us notice that the other is getting smaller and smaller and getting farther and farther away. Worried, you call out to me, "Frank! You are getting farther away! Are you moving???" I reply: "Sorry, ynot, but I am not! The big X-mark remains solidly under my feet. So, I am not moving! What about you?". "The same for me, I'm afraid," you respond, "my big X-mark is right there, all big and X-ey. I can confidently say that I am not moving!"

So what gives? We are getting farther away, but each of us is reporting that we are not moving! Indeed, as we examine the light from each other, we notice a redshift, but that redshift does not agree with calculations from a Doppler effect. So the expansion of space does not make us move!

The expansion of space makes us farther away from each other, not by making us move, but by making more space between us. The light, on its way from you and me, was redshifted not from Doppler effects, but because as it was traveling along, space got more stretched out, which made the photon itself stretch out...a cosmological redshift!

So the lesson is this: the expansion of space creates the illusion of motion; the illusion that galaxies are "flying" away from each other. But the galaxies are not moving, there is just more space between them. This is why I put "move" in quotes earlier: because it looks like the galaxies are moving, but it's really just space expanding. The expansion of space does not "push" galaxies away from each other...there is just more space between the galaxies. The galaxies are farther away from each other, just like you and me were farther away. But not because they moved (they still see a big X under their feet), but because there is more space!


There! That's the best I can come up with! I think I know what you're struggling with, and it's the following statement I put: "space expands and moves objects apart". That was very sloppy on my part, and I am very sorry. I'm a sloppy guy! It should read: "space expands and objects are farther apart". With cosmological expansion, there is no "pushing" or "pulling" or "moving" or "flying"...there is just more space.

I really hope this did the trick! If not, my apologies.

Cheers,
TV's Frank

If we drive away from each other in vehicles, we don’t claim we haven’t moved just because we haven’t moved in relationship to our vehicle (even if the vehicles are connected by a stretchable cord . Same applies to your "X" scenario. An increased or decreased of space (distance) between objects is exactly what movement is. You say that “the expansion of space creates the illusion of motion”. You don’t seem to be saying that it also gives the illusion of increased distance when there is none. In fact you say that things are further apart (increased distance). But that this is not because they have moved apart, it's because there is more space between them. Essentially you are saying that things can change there relative positions without undergoing any movement. With the lack of further explanation, this seems totally ludicrous to me.

Do you make any distinction between the terms "space" and "distance"? If so, what is it?

 

[Taffer]

Sure it does. It postulates a whole zoo of magical items to explain observations ...

Really? Lets see which of these are magical?

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

Predicted independantly of the Big Bang theory. Accepted to actually exist by basically everyone. The wealth of evidence is overwhelming. Also, nothing to do with the Big Bang.

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

Firstly, predicted outside of the Big Bang theory. Get your facts straight to start with. Secondly, what's your point? Where does "not being able to be detected, only inferred" mean it's magic?

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

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

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

The answer "we don't know yet" is generally acceptable. I suggest you look up "magic" in the dictionary, because so far you've failed to present anything magical.

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

So? Since when has "never be seen" meant magic? I strongly suggest you do not understand what "magic" means. Yet again I point out: just because you do not understand it doesn't make it wrong.

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

I fail to see what this has to do with the Big Bang, to be honest, but once again, our inability to understand does not make it wrong. You are making a huge leap of inference when assuming the universe absolutely has to make sense to us.

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

So? Are you suggesting that theories shouldn't be changed if they do not fit the observed data? Do you even understand how science is undertaken?

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

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

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

What nonsense. There is more matter then we can observe in galaxies. Therefore, some form of dark matter exists. It has been inferred from actual images, you may recall. You are just waving your arms because you don't like the idea. Can you provide an alternative explanation for the disparity in observed mass in the universe?

I'm making a large assumption? ROTFLOL!

Yes, you are. Where is your evidence that we can detect everything in the universe given our current technology?

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

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

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

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

There is no big conspiricy.

You must have missed it. Well perhaps looking at my last post will help you catch up. It's from a peer reviewed source.
__________________

Ok, good. And have we had an explanation from anyone else?

 

[Hokulele]

If we drive away from each other in vehicles, we don’t claim we haven’t moved just because we haven’t moved in relationship to our vehicle (even if the vehicles are connected by a stretchable cord . Same applies to your "X" scenario. An increased or decreased of space (distance) between objects is exactly what movement is. You say that “the expansion of space creates the illusion of motion”. You don’t seem to be saying that it also gives the illusion of increased distance when there is none. In fact you say that things are further apart (increased distance). But that this is not because they have moved apart, it's because there is more space between them. Essentially you are saying that things can change there relative positions without undergoing any movement. With the lack of further explanation, this seems totally ludicrous to me.

Do you make any distinction between the terms "space" and "distance"? If so, what is it?

ynot, I do not mean to sound condescending here, but have you read any books about special relativity? This might help clear up some of your confusion. I am probably not the best person to try and explain it (I don't teach physics for a living), so if you aren't familiar with SR, you may want to ask someone here to explain it for you, as it may help you make sense of what TV Frank is saying.

 

[ynot]

ynot, I do not mean to sound condescending here, but have you read any books about special relativity? This might help clear up some of your confusion. I am probably not the best person to try and explain it (I don't teach physics for a living), so if you aren't familiar with SR, you may want to ask someone here to explain it for you, as it may help you make sense of what TV Frank is saying.

Thanks for your comments. I believe I have a reasonable understanding of Relativity, but a poor acceptance of it. I get annoyed when people imply that to gain an understanding of something automatically means you will accept it. It’s saying “What I know is correct, and when you know what I know, you will agree with me”. Of course I realise that Relativity, and the point TV’s Frank is making, have been studied for many years by many educated, clever people. This obviously means that their conclusions are far more likely to be correct than mine. I can only “call it as I see it” however. This doesn’t mean I have to fully understand everything to believe it, but if something is claimed that is extraordinary, it requires extraordinary proof. The claim that objects can change their relative positions with any movement is an extraordinary claim as far as I‘m concerned. Changing relative positions is movement.

 

[Yllanes]

Well, if you don't believe in relativity at all,

That is a strawman since what I said is I make no claim either way and that subject is not relevant to this thread.

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

Also, you keep saying plasma cosmologists are prevented from publishing in journals, but you haven't given any evidence for it.

 

[wollery]

Also, you keep saying plasma cosmologists are prevented from publishing in journals, but you haven't given any evidence for it.

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

 

[Taffer]

Well I guess that depends on your point of view.

I imagine the folks who believed in an earth centered universe felt much the same as you about the time of Galileo Galilei.

No, not really. Anyone who has CT rants seems less credible to me.